41–50 of 109 posts
Unpopular opinion: I don’t like this. Would much prefer that ideas compete. Id sort of give Amazon a pass since, unlike twitter, Reddit, Facebook & YouTube, it doesn’t make many promises regarding the free exchange of ideas. But still.
Fake news isn't ideas. It's fake facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are some that would say that a government should not be able to force you to inject things into your own or your children's bodies. They would call that tyranny. Much of the pro-choice argument regarding abortion is based on the idea that you own your own body. My kids get vaccinated, but I sympathize with the anti-vaxxers arguments regarding governmental force.
Vaccinating your child is basic medical care for your child. Your child has a right to life and my child has the right not to get whooping cough and possibly die from it. If you don't believe in vaccines, don't have kids.
Interesting, I've never heard that being disease free is a right. Where do you believe rights come from?
Fantastic. I would be thrilled to see other tech companies declare a holy war against this kind of misinformation. In fact, it would make me ecstatic if they started doing the same with other topics that have overwhelming scientific consensus, like climate change. I frankly don't care if it's censorship. It's a hill I'll happily die on.
"The ends do not justify the means." Even for something as important as addressing climate change.
Fantastic. I would be thrilled to see other tech companies declare a holy war against this kind of misinformation. In fact, it would make me ecstatic if they started doing the same with other topics that have overwhelming scientific consensus, like climate change. I frankly don't care if it's censorship. It's a hill I'll happily die on.
You like "science" but can't actually read the insert. Why?
You posted a link with red boxes around things, and I'm inferring I'm supposed to make a new conclusion or challenge my beliefs on the subject. But I don't have sufficient context to follow what you're getting at without you explaining what claim you're making that is supported by the insert.
Good
Here is an insert for you to enjoy! https://imgur.com/a/Q8IvuZJ
Unpopular opinion: I don’t like this. Would much prefer that ideas compete. Id sort of give Amazon a pass since, unlike twitter, Reddit, Facebook & YouTube, it doesn’t make many promises regarding the free exchange of ideas. But still.
To me, this action says "We have chosen not to publish material, that is based on indisputably false premises, that may harm viewers and the public at large." That sounds like an acceptable line to me.
Plus, this isn't just a black and white issue. What if a specific vaccine is released some day that turns out to be harmful? Harmful drugs frequently make it passed FDA approval only to be recalled later.
If one of them happens to be a specific vaccine, are we going to be censoring any and all media that tries to sound the alarm?
Fantastic. I would be thrilled to see other tech companies declare a holy war against this kind of misinformation. In fact, it would make me ecstatic if they started doing the same with other topics that have overwhelming scientific consensus, like climate change. I frankly don't care if it's censorship. It's a hill I'll happily die on.
Phlogiston, luminiferous aether, and Newtonian mechanics also once had "overwhelming scientific consensus". " The ends do not justify the means. " Even for something as important as addressing climate change.
Anti-Vaxx is basically like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit of a public health nuisance when kids start dying because other people don't want their kids to get a measles shot It's hard to believe that tens of thousands of kids still die from the measles every year.
I don't disagree. I personally think it's irresponsible not to vaccinate your kids. I also support schools and such requiring vaccinations for attendance (although that gets murky when the government runs the school). But using the government to forcibly inject stuff into people's bodies seems wrong.
You say you support vaccination but you can't help but describe it without the necessary context, as if random Feds are strapping babies down against their will and pumping random fluids into them against their will for no particular reason.
You can make your argument and avoid the pointlessly nefarious language.
Unpopular opinion: I don’t like this. Would much prefer that ideas compete. Id sort of give Amazon a pass since, unlike twitter, Reddit, Facebook & YouTube, it doesn’t make many promises regarding the free exchange of ideas. But still.
The existence (and growth) of these "sceptics" is a testament to our inability to live up to your standards of critical thinking. I don't see how more pro-vaccine information could ever move the needle. The dynamics are rather asymmetric.
And the "all the information/everyone decides for themselves" strategy is fundamentally impossible, anyway: if you "trust no one", your only chance to verify the benefits of vaccines is to redo the studies yourself. That's impossible, obviously.
So one way or another, we need to delegate some editorial control to institutions/people that we can trust to take on part of the burdens of verifying information.
"Trust" does not imply blind allegiance here: these institutions have track records that you can spot-check. There will always be competition between them. And they tend to follow long-term incentives to keep your trust instead whatever short-term benefit could be derived from lying to you.
This isn't some obscure idea. It's so fundamental to the functioning of our society people don't even notice how they constantly rely on trust. Do you ever board a plane? You're trusting some FAA employees, and that they work within a legal structure that makes it unappealing for them to let a drunk pilot bribe them. Do you trust your spouse more than some random stranger not to steal from you? That's because you have known them for a decade, and (again) because they have far more to lose than to gain.