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

Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#71

Post by _red »

throwawaymath wrote: post #57
_red wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now this is just one vaccine, and its not wise to extrapolate wholesale. However, this one clearly states: there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza from using this product. Note: Its curious I'm being downvoted for actually posted an actual insert, which has real scientific information. You would think all the "science lovers" would applaud that. Ho hum, I guess I should'v…

Well I'm not downvoting you since 1) I can't, you responded to me; and 2) you're not being offtopic. And you're at least defending your position without memeing even if I disagree with it. That being said, I'm glad you clarified because I figured the implication you were getting at is these are harmful vaccines. Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful ?

[flagged]

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#72

Post by freedomben »

krapp wrote: post #49
freedomben wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you keep calling it "stuff?" and why "forcibly inject?" 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.

I see your point regarding the word "stuff." Mostly I phrase it like that because I'm trying to empathize with (and represent) the anti-vaxxer view. They don't view vaccines as medicine, they view it as poison or at least potentially harmful. They are also not often well informed regarding it's contents, so to them it is just "stuff" that someone who they don't trust says is good for them.

"Forcibly inject" tho is metaphorical but accurate. Many of the people here are advocating the mandating of (i.e. forcing) people to vaccinate their kids.

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#73

Post by melling »

AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #61
krapp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you keep calling it "stuff?" and why "forcibly inject?" 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.

> as if random Feds are strapping babies down against their will and pumping random fluids into them against their will. That's not completely wrong. The kids in my mother's generation for example were force-vaccinated in school and a lot of them suffered through life-threatening kidney issues caused by said vaccine. This is certainly not the case right now, but I have heard of people advocating for mandatory vaccina…

Can you be more specific? Which vaccines caused the problem, for example? What years?

I got my shots in the early 1970's and I don't remember there being any problems, fears, etc.

As far as I can tell, this all started about 10-15 years ago when the general public started jumping on the Internet in large numbers.

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#74

Post by _red »

jjeaff wrote: post #68
_red wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now this is just one vaccine, and its not wise to extrapolate wholesale. However, this one clearly states: there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza from using this product. Note: Its curious I'm being downvoted for actually posted an actual insert, which has real scientific information. You would think all the "science lovers" would applaud that. Ho hum, I guess I should'v…

As far as I know, no one is trying to force the flu vaccine. You have to get it every year and it is widely known to be potentially ineffective. Measles vaccines on the other hand are considered about 97% effective.

>As far as I know, no one is trying to force the flu vaccine.

Yet.

What do you thinks going to happen once they get the precedent set?

Give it another 5 years or so.

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#75

Post by freedomben »

buttcoinslol wrote: post #53
freedomben wrote: post #19

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.

People are committed by the state (MN at least) for mental health reasons, and in certain cases, forced to take neuroleptic drugs, some of which are injected. Tyranny? In my opinion, promoting an anti-vaccination stance is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater, or should be viewed as such. It's a public health risk.

If you were committed by the state for mental health reasons, and in certain cases, forced to take neuroleptic drugs, some of which are injected, would you consider that tyranny? I definitely would ...

But I concede that's a pretty hard problem to deal with. I don't have any answers.

I personally know someone who is wrongfully convicted and serving a prison sentence. Maybe my mind is corrupted by movies but I've seen enough films where people are wrongly committed for political or revenge reasons that I would be hesitant to support that and give them the power to do it.

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#76

Post by matt4077 »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #22
pbreit wrote: post #5

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.

I think your opinion is basically the standard one: censorship is generally bad, marketplace of ideas, etc. I don't have a take on this particular issue. But I think censorship is generally very dangerous, and I also think the Mill-style marketplace of ideas is a bad analogy bordering on the nonsensical the more I think about it. Humans generally synchronize their ideas with each other and generally put minimal effor…

The "marketplace" analogy is comically flawed. The actual marketplace works only when it's tightly regulated, from anti-trust to consumer protection to standards and on. When disputes arise, the totality of civil law and the court system serves to adjudicate them. Institutions such as Bloomberg are basically deputised to be trustworthy intermediaries collecting and verifying market data.

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#77

Post by throwawaymath »

gubbrora wrote: post #28
kevinthew wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competing ideas are good but mass public disinformation is one the 21rst century's biggest problems already. There needs to be some counter to this.

It's a made up problem. There has always been lots of bad information. People are better informed than ever. Just take religion and magic and superstition which have declined a lot. It's a made up problem to justify authoritarian solutions.

But is it an authoritarian solution? Does that terminology make sense outside of the sociopolitical context of government action? I feel it really diminishes the meaning of the word, "authoritarian" when you throw it around to describe the rights reserved by a non-government entity to police its own platform.

A private company has a platform, and they can choose what content to allow on the platform. If you don't like it then enjoy your content elsewhere.

If anything, it sounds like a bit of a made up problem to declare Amazon (or another similarly sized tech company) is being authoritarian by removing anti-vaccination videos. I mean come on, we have a rich history of authoritarian governments murdering people for vocal dissent. I get that you disagree with private censorship, but let's have some perspective now...

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#78

Post by [deleted] »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #22
pbreit wrote: post #5

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.

I think your opinion is basically the standard one: censorship is generally bad, marketplace of ideas, etc. I don't have a take on this particular issue. But I think censorship is generally very dangerous, and I also think the Mill-style marketplace of ideas is a bad analogy bordering on the nonsensical the more I think about it. Humans generally synchronize their ideas with each other and generally put minimal effor…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#79

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

throwawaymath wrote: post #57
_red wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now this is just one vaccine, and its not wise to extrapolate wholesale. However, this one clearly states: there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza from using this product. Note: Its curious I'm being downvoted for actually posted an actual insert, which has real scientific information. You would think all the "science lovers" would applaud that. Ho hum, I guess I should'v…

Well I'm not downvoting you since 1) I can't, you responded to me; and 2) you're not being offtopic. And you're at least defending your position without memeing even if I disagree with it. That being said, I'm glad you clarified because I figured the implication you were getting at is these are harmful vaccines. Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful ?

> Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful?

Part of the second picture that the user has highlighted basically says that said vaccine contains a mercury derivative and that it has not been tested for "carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility". So I would say that this is also part of his issue.

Re: Amazon Removed Anti-Vax Documentaries from Prime Video

#80

Post by throwawaymath »

rdtsc wrote: post #63

I wonder if they inadvertently strengthened the conspiracy theory by doing it. Sometimes censorship has that perverse effect. I easily see someone hearing from their "friend" about how Amazon has removed the video because they know it's true, and how it just validates all the bullshit claims presented there.

It's a balance. Banning books has been known to make them more widely consumed, but reading is intrinsically less viral (and more informationally dense, typically) than watching a video.

I think it's easier to attain a critical mass of followers if these kinds of videos go unchallenged.

Post reply on HN