6 ms·

Wasn't this one of those "forbidden" conspiracy theories, censored from most social media, while most people (here too) cheered for "fighting misinformation" wi

Wasn't this one of those "forbidden" conspiracy theories, censored from most social media, while most people (here too) cheered for "fighting misinformation" with censorship?

ImHereToVote 2y ago
It was malinformation. Whether it is misinformation or not is irrelevant.
- Vecr 2y ago
  I'm assuming this is satire?
  - ImHereToVote 2y ago
    Yes.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
[flagged]
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Are they really anti-china? Or are they just trying to shake down China for some cash?
  - nradov 2y ago
    There is now a broad consensus across the national security establishment and the leadership of both major political parties that China must be treated as an adversary. Attempts at constructive engagement failed so now we have to pivot to containment in Cold War 2. This is a strategic issue that transcends money.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      Agreed. But the president's sudden 180 on the tiktok ban leaves me questioning his motives.
- CMay 2y ago
  Concern about China is not partisan anymore, pretty much everyone is on board now. Also from the article: "Officials said the agency was not bending its views to a new boss, and that the new assessment had been in the works for some time."
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    But we know Trump lies, and that people around him change their story and lie for him, and we know he gets rid of personnel who don't 'kiss the ring'... and this comes at the exact instant that he says he's going to start his import tariffs for Chinese goods and needs media support to convince USA-ians that making all goods coming from China now expensive is a good idea... I mean you're going to need extraordinary evidence to show this is true; but CIA say there's no new evidence and it's a low confidence conclusion. Probability that it's just Trump continuing to be deceitful and manipulative approaches certainty.
    - oldpersonintx 2y ago
      [dead]
    - CMay 2y ago
      Trump can nominate a CIA director, but cannot appoint a CIA director. Once a CIA director gets confirmed, they can influence hiring decisions at the CIA, but that takes time. This was investigated for a long while before Trump was even president. This was started under Biden. Trump doesn't have that many people left to convince that China is problematic. The CIA isn't the first to conclude this, but also the FBI and the DoE. Both of their reports came out under the Biden administration. This doesn't appear to be a new trend or a dramatic shift in conclusion as a result of Trump becoming president.
    - sojournerc 2y ago
      Every thing wrong or suspicious in the world is not suddenly Trump's fault. This is trump derangement syndrome.
- api 2y ago
  If this is true some of it may have been funded by the US, so it makes both countries look bad.
- matthest 2y ago
  Trump (and Elon) are actually fairly pro-China. Or at least, Trump and Xi have a good relationship (and Trump was quoted last month as believing the US and China can solve many problems together), and Elon loves China.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    They’re pro-themselves. China could bankrupt Musk at the stroke of a pen by kicking Tesla out, so he’s effectively their foreign agent. Trump wants bribes, and he has leverage via his unchecked power over tariffs. He even opened a convenient collection box via his cryptocurrency. They’re well-oiled grift machines.
suzumer 2y ago
Saying COVID-19 leaked from a lab with zero evidence is different than waiting for evidence and then saying it leaked from a lab.
- Throw84949595 2y ago
  But we can say it leaked from wet market without evidence!
- cm2187 2y ago
  Censoring views that it came from a lab leak with zero evidence isn't any better. In fact I remember being lied to by major news outlets at the time saying that the evidence points to a non lab origin.
  - _cenw 2y ago
    It did though. Animal origin only stopped being the most favored explanation because we haven't found the link in 5 years.
    - frde_me 2y ago
      I'm confused, do you mean the animal origin had no evidence either, but was favoured? But not having evidence for 5 years suddenly makes the other theory favoured instead? So basically neither had real evidence, but one was favoured?
      - _cenw 2y ago
        False equivalence. Zoonotic diseases have precedent (SARS, MERS) and SARS-CoV-2 most closely resembles BANAL-52, a bat Coronavirus. Animal origin still seems more likely to me, but less than 5 years ago, since we have a missing link one would expect to see.
        wongarsu 2y ago
        Animal origin does not contradict a lab leak however. Especially if you have a biolab studying coronaviruses in bats in the city identified as ground zero. It does favor an accidental lab leak over a targeted weaponization and release, but it doesn't contradict a lab origin.
rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
I think the issue falls into the problem of getting reliable information out of China. Because of a lack of access and free speech it's hard to get verifiable evidence to it's origin being from a lab leak or a market in either direction. Unfortunately, because of that lack of access mistrust and conspiracy theories spread like wild fires. It's important with science to understand that there is what happened or what is observed and to separate that away from wishful thinking or feelings.
dekhn 2y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/us/politics/covid-lab-leak-fauci.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/us/politics/covid-lab-lea... and https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/media/covid-19-origins-lab-leak-media/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/media/covid-19-origins-lab-le... In short a few prominent people claimed it was racist to suggest that China's research or wet market contributed to the origins of COVID. They were mistaken but with the highly politicized environment, it helped distort opinions at a critical time. The claims of racism have since been demonstrated to be at least partly false (that is, there is a legitimate case to be made that China's researchers or wet market did contribute to the origin of COVID, and that China's leadership hid most of the evidence that would be used to make a case).
- _cenw 2y ago
  Conflation of very different factors. Animal origin was always going to be the most likely explanation, so wet market tracks. Lab leak after secret gain of function research is much more of a speculatory accusation than the existence of wet markets.
- standardUser 2y ago
  It's not racist to blame China, but it is racist to accuse/harass/disparage Asian people and that was what was happening in America. Pushing back on the lab leak theory was at least in part to stop the dumbest among us from blaming their Asian neighbor. That and the lack of evidence.
  - ugh123 2y ago
    Both happened. People who merely "suggested" the lab could have leaked, and asked to investigate more, were being called racist.
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    It was racism to suggest that China’s only level4 bio lab that received funding for coronavirus research was the source of the leak… But not racism to declare that the virus must have come from a wet market where the savages eat uncooked bats and pangolin. Now the goal posts have shifted to “lack of evidence” knowing full well china would nuke the city before admitting they caused covid by negligence.
NotYourLawyer 2y ago
[flagged]
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  [flagged]
chasd00 2y ago
> while most people (here too) cheered for "fighting misinformation" with censorship? Exactly right. Remember any comment daring to question the authorities was shouted down to oblivion. Anyone daring to question lockdowns or other draconian measures were met with fire and brimstone. I lost a lot of respect for HN during Covid. I feel it’s important to not forget the level of adherence to authoritarian rule that infected the population during Covid. Even places like HN were not immune. “Just following orders” was SOP even here.
snakeyjake 2y ago
[flagged]
tensor 2y ago
It wasn't forbidden, it lacked evidence, which it still does, even under this highly biased new administration.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  It was forbidden since users were banned for talking about it. That is what is meant by forbidden. When an authority exercises their power over you to stop you.
  - tensor 2y ago
    For a banned topic I sure saw tons of posts and discussion about it.

Wasn't this one of those "forbidden" conspiracy theories, censored from most social media, while most people (here too) cheered for "fighting misinformation" with censorship?

ImHereToVote 2y ago

It was malinformation. Whether it is misinformation or not is irrelevant.

Vecr 2y ago
I'm assuming this is satire?
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  Yes.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

[flagged]

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Are they really anti-china? Or are they just trying to shake down China for some cash?
- nradov 2y ago
  There is now a broad consensus across the national security establishment and the leadership of both major political parties that China must be treated as an adversary. Attempts at constructive engagement failed so now we have to pivot to containment in Cold War 2. This is a strategic issue that transcends money.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Agreed. But the president's sudden 180 on the tiktok ban leaves me questioning his motives.
CMay 2y ago
Concern about China is not partisan anymore, pretty much everyone is on board now. Also from the article: "Officials said the agency was not bending its views to a new boss, and that the new assessment had been in the works for some time."
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  But we know Trump lies, and that people around him change their story and lie for him, and we know he gets rid of personnel who don't 'kiss the ring'... and this comes at the exact instant that he says he's going to start his import tariffs for Chinese goods and needs media support to convince USA-ians that making all goods coming from China now expensive is a good idea... I mean you're going to need extraordinary evidence to show this is true; but CIA say there's no new evidence and it's a low confidence conclusion. Probability that it's just Trump continuing to be deceitful and manipulative approaches certainty.
  - oldpersonintx 2y ago
    [dead]
  - CMay 2y ago
    Trump can nominate a CIA director, but cannot appoint a CIA director. Once a CIA director gets confirmed, they can influence hiring decisions at the CIA, but that takes time. This was investigated for a long while before Trump was even president. This was started under Biden. Trump doesn't have that many people left to convince that China is problematic. The CIA isn't the first to conclude this, but also the FBI and the DoE. Both of their reports came out under the Biden administration. This doesn't appear to be a new trend or a dramatic shift in conclusion as a result of Trump becoming president.
  - sojournerc 2y ago
    Every thing wrong or suspicious in the world is not suddenly Trump's fault. This is trump derangement syndrome.
api 2y ago
If this is true some of it may have been funded by the US, so it makes both countries look bad.
matthest 2y ago
Trump (and Elon) are actually fairly pro-China. Or at least, Trump and Xi have a good relationship (and Trump was quoted last month as believing the US and China can solve many problems together), and Elon loves China.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  They’re pro-themselves. China could bankrupt Musk at the stroke of a pen by kicking Tesla out, so he’s effectively their foreign agent. Trump wants bribes, and he has leverage via his unchecked power over tariffs. He even opened a convenient collection box via his cryptocurrency. They’re well-oiled grift machines.

suzumer 2y ago

Saying COVID-19 leaked from a lab with zero evidence is different than waiting for evidence and then saying it leaked from a lab.

Throw84949595 2y ago
But we can say it leaked from wet market without evidence!
cm2187 2y ago
Censoring views that it came from a lab leak with zero evidence isn't any better. In fact I remember being lied to by major news outlets at the time saying that the evidence points to a non lab origin.
- _cenw 2y ago
  It did though. Animal origin only stopped being the most favored explanation because we haven't found the link in 5 years.
  - frde_me 2y ago
    I'm confused, do you mean the animal origin had no evidence either, but was favoured? But not having evidence for 5 years suddenly makes the other theory favoured instead? So basically neither had real evidence, but one was favoured?
    - _cenw 2y ago
      False equivalence. Zoonotic diseases have precedent (SARS, MERS) and SARS-CoV-2 most closely resembles BANAL-52, a bat Coronavirus. Animal origin still seems more likely to me, but less than 5 years ago, since we have a missing link one would expect to see.
      - wongarsu 2y ago
        Animal origin does not contradict a lab leak however. Especially if you have a biolab studying coronaviruses in bats in the city identified as ground zero. It does favor an accidental lab leak over a targeted weaponization and release, but it doesn't contradict a lab origin.

rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago

I think the issue falls into the problem of getting reliable information out of China. Because of a lack of access and free speech it's hard to get verifiable evidence to it's origin being from a lab leak or a market in either direction. Unfortunately, because of that lack of access mistrust and conspiracy theories spread like wild fires. It's important with science to understand that there is what happened or what is observed and to separate that away from wishful thinking or feelings.

dekhn 2y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/us/politics/covid-lab-leak-fauci.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/us/politics/covid-lab-lea... and https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/media/covid-19-origins-lab-leak-media/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/media/covid-19-origins-lab-le... In short a few prominent people claimed it was racist to suggest that China's research or wet market contributed to the origins of COVID. They were mistaken but with the highly politicized environment, it helped distort opinions at a critical time. The claims of racism have since been demonstrated to be at least partly false (that is, there is a legitimate case to be made that China's researchers or wet market did contribute to the origin of COVID, and that China's leadership hid most of the evidence that would be used to make a case).

_cenw 2y ago
Conflation of very different factors. Animal origin was always going to be the most likely explanation, so wet market tracks. Lab leak after secret gain of function research is much more of a speculatory accusation than the existence of wet markets.
standardUser 2y ago
It's not racist to blame China, but it is racist to accuse/harass/disparage Asian people and that was what was happening in America. Pushing back on the lab leak theory was at least in part to stop the dumbest among us from blaming their Asian neighbor. That and the lack of evidence.
- ugh123 2y ago
  Both happened. People who merely "suggested" the lab could have leaked, and asked to investigate more, were being called racist.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  It was racism to suggest that China’s only level4 bio lab that received funding for coronavirus research was the source of the leak… But not racism to declare that the virus must have come from a wet market where the savages eat uncooked bats and pangolin. Now the goal posts have shifted to “lack of evidence” knowing full well china would nuke the city before admitting they caused covid by negligence.

NotYourLawyer 2y ago

[flagged]

NotYourLawyer 2y ago
[flagged]

chasd00 2y ago

> while most people (here too) cheered for "fighting misinformation" with censorship? Exactly right. Remember any comment daring to question the authorities was shouted down to oblivion. Anyone daring to question lockdowns or other draconian measures were met with fire and brimstone. I lost a lot of respect for HN during Covid. I feel it’s important to not forget the level of adherence to authoritarian rule that infected the population during Covid. Even places like HN were not immune. “Just following orders” was SOP even here.

snakeyjake 2y ago

[flagged]

tensor 2y ago

It wasn't forbidden, it lacked evidence, which it still does, even under this highly biased new administration.

ImHereToVote 2y ago
It was forbidden since users were banned for talking about it. That is what is meant by forbidden. When an authority exercises their power over you to stop you.
- tensor 2y ago
  For a banned topic I sure saw tons of posts and discussion about it.