Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#51

Post by yters »

msla wrote: post #19
nabnob wrote: post #10

This is incredibly worrying. I understand that anti-vax conspiracy theories are dangerous, but I can think of a ton of ways banning "bad medical advice", as determined by a $10/hr contractor at Pinterest, Facebook, etc. could end up hurting people with health problems by preventing them from sharing useful information. I have gender dysphoria and at one point considered getting on testosterone, but thanks to conversa…

> I have gender dysphoria and at one point considered getting on testosterone, but thanks to conversations with transmen and detransitioned women on social media, I learned about less-commonly discussed side effects and decided against taking testosterone. This is an area where research is still developing and there aren't a ton of long-term studies, so it's incredibly helpful to be able to learn from other people's…

The concerns they have don't sound completely unreasonable.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#52

Post by Pimpus »

crazygringo wrote: post #29

This is a really, really, really thorny issue. On the one hand, it seems noble/responsible to suppress anti-vax, Russian influence, conspiracy theories, etc. On the other hand, for centuries it's been recognized that the best antidote to "bad speech" isn't censorship, it's more speech . Don't ban, convince. But on the other other hand, that's been exclusively argued in the domain of government action, that government…

> On the other hand, for centuries it's been recognized that the best antidote to "bad speech" isn't censorship, it's more speech. Don't ban, convince.

The problem with that here is that the medical industry is actually wrong. They want to censor speech because they are the bad science, and people are figuring it out. If they were right, then yes, "more speech" would be a great strategy.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#53

Post by jdietrich »

crazygringo wrote: post #33
pjc50 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to AI, it's possible to algorithmically generate almost unlimited amounts of false or meaningless speech to drown out accurate information.

Thanks to AI can't we also do the opposite? E.g. detect conspiracy theory speech and automatically provide relevant links/warnings to relevant curated sources?

The list of things that are true is orders of magnitude smaller than the list of things that appear true. Randomly generating plausible-looking bullshit is a thing we can do now, but ascertaining the validity of a factual statement is tantamount to solving the AGI problem.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#54

Post by jamieson-becker »

skh wrote: post #48
jamieson-becker wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There will always be some probability of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong. But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. Is that really the best we can do? How many times in history has consensus expert opinion been found later to be dangerous and wrong ? Should we…

We is you, me, and society at large. Yes, it really is the best we can do. If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. Clearly if a large majority of the experts in an area of science agree on something then it suggests that if a person were to educate themself in that area t…

>> But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined?

> We is you, me, and society at large.

But that is not who would be passing judgment in this brave new world of customer service reps and AI. Do we just ban everything mildly controversial?

> Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion.

Are you a qualified, cited expert in this area that you are holding forth on?

> If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area.

There is some room for intelligent debate in nearly any 'consensus' opinion. Some percentage of even experts nearly always disagree with the consensus, and consensus has often been proven wrong. If society went along with the expert scientific opinion concerning eugenics, for example, many of us might not even be alive today.

> Non experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up.

Non-experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is exactly how the world has existed for thousands of years. You seem to be saying that the answer is to just shut down this debate if it occurs among the great unwashed.

> It’s why we don’t let just anyone practice medicine or structural engineering. Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion.

And, yet, we do. In most free jurisdictions, you are free to practice medicine on yourself or do design your own structure or home.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#55

Post by creaghpatr »

jdietrich wrote: post #50
ummonk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TERF is most definitely a slur, and cis is often used as one as well. E.g. "cis white males!"

>TERF is most definitely a slur Really? What else should we call self-professed radical feminists whose definition of a woman excludes trans women?

Probably not a slur.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#56

Post by ummonk »

jdietrich wrote: post #50
ummonk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TERF is most definitely a slur, and cis is often used as one as well. E.g. "cis white males!"

>TERF is most definitely a slur Really? What else should we call self-professed radical feminists whose definition of a woman excludes trans women?

Radfem. You wouldn’t go around calling pro-choice and pro-life people “anti-life” and “anti-choice” would you?

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#57

Post by creaghpatr »

jdietrich wrote: post #50
ummonk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TERF is most definitely a slur, and cis is often used as one as well. E.g. "cis white males!"

>TERF is most definitely a slur Really? What else should we call self-professed radical feminists whose definition of a woman excludes trans women?

But I defend your right to believe and share that biological men who claim to be women are actually women and would never allow a tech company to censor you!

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#58

Post by nisten »

PavlikPaja wrote: post #35
nisten wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion this hypothesis is totally wrong because the accuracy of information is the problem and not the quantity of it. We can handle quantity, now we need to handle error correction and build better access permissions too.

The problem with censorship is that either the truth is obvious, and there is no need for it, or it isn't, so there is no way to decide fairly what to censor.

I don't know if censorship is the right branding here because it imposes a correlation between authoritarian citizen-torturing regimes and how we effectively use and encounter "censorship" in our every day lives when doing things such as registering a company name or posting porn on facebook or something.

I can't sell vitamins that say "cures cancer" on the packaging so why should a youtuber sell ads while saying the exact same thing.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#59

Post by skh »

jamieson-becker wrote: post #54
skh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We is you, me, and society at large. Yes, it really is the best we can do. If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. Clearly if a large majority of the experts in an area of science agree on something then it suggests that if a person were to educate themself in that area t…

>> But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > We is you, me, and society at large. But that is not who would be passing judgment in this brave new world of customer service reps and AI. Do we just ban everything mildly controversial? > Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion. Are you a qualified, cited exper…

Of course people are free to practice medicine on themselves. They are free to make up their own minds on what they think is right/wrong. They ought not be free, in my opinion, to unduly influence others. At least not necessarily free to spout off whatever ideas they think are correct. Of course this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. It’s OK for government to get involved in this too. For instance we don’t allow peddlers of snake oil to make whatever claims they desire to make. This is a good thing.

I’ll restate my point in a different way. When government is deciding what types of scientific information peddling ought to be banned or regulated it’s best for our leaders to consult the experts of that area.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#60

Post by jamieson-becker »

skh wrote: post #59
jamieson-becker wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > We is you, me, and society at large. But that is not who would be passing judgment in this brave new world of customer service reps and AI. Do we just ban everything mildly controversial? > Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion. Are you a qualified, cited exper…

Of course people are free to practice medicine on themselves. They are free to make up their own minds on what they think is right/wrong. They ought not be free, in my opinion, to unduly influence others. At least not necessarily free to spout off whatever ideas they think are correct. Of course this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. It’s OK for go…

> .. this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky.

"Suppression of ideas" is a grey area? I have no words.

Post reply on HN