Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#161

Post by nopriorarrests » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:53 AM UTC

SerLava wrote: post #154

nopriorarrests wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Wait, are you talking about the people who want to send everyone back to work now This is an argument made in a bad faith. You can't send "everyone to work now", if you are not running a gulag. People who are financially secure can stay at home till 2021, nobody can force them to go to work, this is obvious. It's a question of being able to make a personal decision between staying at home or going to work.

>People who are financially secure can stay at home till 2021, nobody can force them to go to work, this is obvious. >It's a question of being able to make a personal decision between staying at home or going to work. Double speak. You mean rich people can decide to quarantine until 2021, and poor people can decide between work followed by exposure and possible death, or homelessness followed by exposure and possible…

Why is it double speak? Yes, I think that healthy 29 y.o. male with wife, kid and mortgage should have the ability to make a decision between going to work or losing his home.

To make this decision for him looks unethical to me. And why exactly poor? It might be solidly middle class person.

EDIT: I'm pushing forties, can sustain myself for 1.5 years without working maintaining the same lifestyle, and I would go to work if I could. I'm damn tired working from home.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#162

Post by debaserab2 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:54 AM UTC

0xy wrote: post #149

debaserab2 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I’m not. I’m pointing out why looking at the mortality rate of poverty doesn’t support the argument that the economy implications of shelter in place are somehow deadlier than the disease itself. The onus is still on you to make a meaningful argument to support that statement.

It's a prediction based on opinion and data, so I'm not able to support it beyond background references. You're asking me to prove something that hasn't occurred yet. My point is, poverty is deadly, the coronavirus response causes massive unemployment, unemployment causes poverty and so it's pretty obvious that the economic implications have a death rate associated with them that won't shake out for years. In my opin…

> In my opinion, it'll be significantly worse.

Ah, so it's an opinion unsupported by facts or evidence. Got it.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#163

Post by p1necone » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #160

p1necone wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given this the number of people even on hacker news who are throwing very dubious arguments around and completely ignoring the fact that these protestors are obviously either acting in bad faith or very ignorant is a bit concerning too.

examples?

The biggest one is claiming that these people are protesting because they're actually in financial trouble - all the protestors I've seen seem to be well off people complaining they want to get haircuts or go out to eat... There's also a large number of conspiracy theorists in these crowds claiming that the virus doesn't exist, or it's some kind of hoax.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#164

Post by phakding » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:56 AM UTC

megavolcano wrote: post #156

phakding wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are okay with 16 out of every 1000, 30-39 year old person with a family and young kids who are otherwise healthy, die just so you could go out to eat in your favorite restaurant? You are willing to sacrifice them for your benefit. How altruistic of you!

Considering that the more data we get with regards to fatality rate, it's looking more and more along the lines of the seasonal flu (which has a vaccine, generally). The drastic measures taken to protect a tiny minority of people are looking to be more and more pointless. We would not tolerate shutting down the world economy to protect people from the seasonal flu, and we should not tolerate it for this.

And how do you know the fatality rate of flu? That stat is not even reported. Even CDC only has an estimation of flu deaths.

Besides, many strains of flu has a vaccines available. Nothing of that sort exists for corona.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.ht...

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#165

Post by elicash » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:56 AM UTC

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #159

elicash wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never understood this argument. Let's take a cause I disagree with. I'm pro-equality, but still think Christian Mingle shouldn't be forced to match up same-sex couples. Because I disagree with their values, of course, I'd never use their website. OF COURSE conservative Christians should be allowed to have a website that aligns with their values. Not only don't I think this website should be outlawed -- I also don't t…

> I only want to belong to a social network that values science and public health. Why shouldn't I be allowed to be a user of a website that has those same values? I think it's a problem of expectations. Some expect Facebook to just be a social network. Others, like you, expect it to be a safe space where unapproved opinions aren't allowed. Neither kind is bad per se, but I don't think most people expected Facebook t…

I'm rolling my eyes at your "safe space" ridiculousness and bizarre claim that I think unapproved opinions shouldn't be allowed, but putting that aside....

We should both agree that the real problem is monopoly. That if Facebook (and Google btw) weren't so powerful, people would be perfectly cool with the idea that maybe different people can have different values from one another and that maybe different companies could accommodate those different values.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#166

Post by noworriesnate » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:57 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #137

nopriorarrests wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>situation where most medical experts would agree that the quarantine is necessary for saving lives The same experts (like WHO) told everyone 3 month ago that masks don't work, that no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission was found, etc. If they made such obvious mistakes and we still have to obey their orders now, what's the point of having government at all? Let's just accept the rule by the experts and ge…

> If they made such obvious mistakes and we still have to obey their orders now, what's the point of having government at all? That a human made an error doesn't mean the public is smarter than them.

It’s not really a question of intelligence. It’s a question of is the WHO interested in health or politics. Parroting China’s “findings” was good politics. It wasn’t good for world health.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#167

Post by staticassertion » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:00 AM UTC

duchenne wrote: post #155

I guess it is easy to dismiss the message from ordinary people, since they do not express themselves as well as the professional speakers we are used to listen to. If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? In the movie versio…

> If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously?

Most people sound more like the latter than the former. If people were saying "We have a need for haircuts etc, this is serious", they'd get a lot more consideration than some appeal to "but our freedoms". Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives.

If instead you argue that you're legitimately going to see more harm done due to closures, and you back that up sensibly, people will care a lot more. You'll probably be wrong, but people might listen and take that seriously. In fact, they very obviously already are listening to this feedback, and it's a huge part of the communications from govt officials right now - how we are balancing saving lives via lockin vs dealing with the fallout of that exact policy. They're hardly ignoring the issue!

> Could facebook sensor this movie since it pictures the lockdown as a evil action?

Sure they could take it down, it's their platform. Would they? No, probably not, that would be really silly?

> Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision.

The role of our government is not to provide data but then otherwise let people do whatever.

You say "People should be able to take a calculated risk." - how would they calculate it? Most are not capable of making an informed decision like that, and likening this situation to driving is just ridiculous (and ironic, given that car safety was heavily regulated due to huge numbers of people dying while car manufacturers were left unaccountable. The government stepped in with license requirements, manufacturing requirements, etc.).

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#168

Post by 0xy » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

debaserab2 wrote: post #162

0xy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a prediction based on opinion and data, so I'm not able to support it beyond background references. You're asking me to prove something that hasn't occurred yet. My point is, poverty is deadly, the coronavirus response causes massive unemployment, unemployment causes poverty and so it's pretty obvious that the economic implications have a death rate associated with them that won't shake out for years. In my opin…

> In my opinion, it'll be significantly worse. Ah, so it's an opinion unsupported by facts or evidence. Got it.

I get the feeling you didn't read the comment, since this appears to be a strawman. I did cite a study, which you didn't acknowledge or refute.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#169

Post by xkcd-sucks » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

gdubs wrote: post #73

downerending wrote: post #24

It's worth noting that there is a lot of discussion in serious circles (including here on HN) about the balance between too much and not enough with respect to quarantine, lockdown, etc., both in terms of where we are now and what we should do in the near future. I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery, even if they may disagree radically about how to do that. It…

I’m too tired at the moment to figure out where I stand on this [issue of free speech / assembly] but I have a general question: I thought the Supreme Court has already shown that there are limits to speech, such as yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater. I guess the distinction is how directly the speech leads to harm. Would that apply in this situation where most medical experts would agree that the quarantine is nece…

The "fire in a crowded theater" quote is often cited very disingenuously

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#170

Post by TechBro8615 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

phakding wrote: post #16

chrisco255 wrote: post #3

These are Americans exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly. Whether you agree with the protestors or not is irrelevant. Your rights are impacted, too, by this arbitrary platform bias. This cannot stand for long. We have to move away from centralized monopolies on the web.

You should know that this is not a grass root movement rather someone astroturfing. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/04/whos-behind-the-reopen-d... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/coron... Also take a look at this Reddit comment https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/g3niq3/comment/fn... If you don't trust BuzzFeed you can go look at the domain registration information for open[enter state…

It's only "astroturfing" insofar as at least some of these protests are part of an organized drive to protest. I think you'll find that most protests entail some level of organization. Do you think black lives matter protests or women's march protests are "grassroots?" Would you be surprised to learn they are also backed by organizers?