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

Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 595 posts

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

#571

Post by totony »

SerLava wrote: post #557
totony wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of testing people who already have symptoms, maybe we could use those tests to ensure sick people don't come into contact with their groceries? Of course quarantining part of the population is hard, but I fail to see how it is harder than quarantining the whole population

We can't test people doing deliveries because we don't even have tests. Even if we did have tests, at some point nearly everyone is going to have the virus- especially delivery workers. There will literally not be enough people to make clean deliveries. Quarantining the population is easier for us because the majority of us have dwellings already. We do not have tests or ppe.

We don't have unlimited testing, but we have enough tests to secure a few distributions channels to at-risk population

There are also other ways to sanitize these distributions channels, e.g. we know the virus can only last so long on cardboard etc.

I disagree strongly that securing a fraction of our population against a disease is less feasible or practical than what we currently are doing

>especially delivery workers. There will literally not be enough people to make clean deliveries.

Will have had

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

#572

Post by AdrianB1 »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #555
AdrianB1 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please provide a such example? I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Operation Enduring Freedom, the Iraq War, the Patriot act, etc, were all based on the premise of defending our freedom, when the reality is Iraq nor Al-Qaeda posed any existential threat to it. The reason freedoms are often infringed upon in times of crisis are because it is often pragmatic to do so. Also, most of these protestors have little to any idea how the US government works, let alone how its founding father'…

No, they are not. Maybe someone said that, but it is quite obvious you don't go to fight in Afghanistan to protect your free speech or the right to bear arms, is it?

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

#573

Post by jariel »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #567
jariel wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Facebook is a private platform. It can moderate how it pleases." Absolutely not; it is highly regulated (probably should be more so), subject to constitutional concerns, ongoing legislation and pressures.

Maybe so. But protecting the 1st Amendment rights of its users is not one of those "constitutional concerns".

Let the courts decide.

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

#574

Post by modzu »

ebg13 wrote: post #296
modzu wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so it's a hard topic nobody wants to think about genuinely but isn't there truth to it? the nursigng homes that are being ravaged the most -- people are there for end of life care. by definition. they are generally under a policy of do not recussitate. thats very different than any hn readers experience (nobody here is commenting as a nursing home patient). this is not to say their lives dont matter but the context d…

> but isn't there truth to it? NO. THERE IS NOT. Less than 50% of COVID deaths are over 75 years old. That means that more than 50% are under 75. A full quarter of deaths are below 64. These are not people dying anyway. These are not people in nursing homes. These are people like you.

i wish that math and statistics were mandatory education

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

#575

Post by FpUser »

totony wrote: post #552
FpUser wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you've got no moral rights to lock person up for a year or two with totally unknown outcome. If you are so eager to save public funds you have a lots of places to start shaving. You might be amazed when you look how governments spend money. Also if locked up for extended amount of time said person is likely develop whole bunch of ailments include mental that would "overwhelm"(tm) healthcare as well unless you de…

I agree that you have no rights to lock someone up, but society seem to have already accepted that others have the right to tell you what to do with your life, e.g. locking down someone for suicide attempt I was also comparing lockdown vs partial lockdown, which I feel still does more damage to more people to be total

That's the major problem with society. Many people could sell their rights in return to some mythical crap that politicians sell them often under deliberately false or mistaken pretense.

On a particular topic. This hardly qualifies as suicide attempt. Just increased risk. Maybe the same as selling alcohol to people knowing that many of them will end up driving drunk or many other similar things.

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

#576

Post by FpUser »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #531
FpUser wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What support? Said person will just have higher chances to die. Their choice. They're not inflicting death upon the others as accordingly to proposal there are no restrictions on younger carriers without symptoms.

Support to allow them to stay home. It's not really a "choice" to stay home if that means they will starve or be evicted.

Support how? Bare minimum just to make sure they do not starve and not get kicked out on the street? Still a torture. F.. that

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

#577

Post by modzu »

camgunz wrote: post #559
modzu wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is false. first of all, a lack of imagination does not mean we have a single tool to fight a coronavirus. shelter in place is perhaps the single tool in your mind, not in the world. secondly, it is absolutely more complicated than that. economy vs health is a flase dichotomy. like the trolly problem one option seems obvious (save the crowd) but the implications for the other choice are, importantly, equally vali…

> that is false. first of all, a lack of imagination does not mean we have a single tool to fight a coronavirus. The fact that we need to imagine more options means we only have the one.

while i dont follow the logic (what color is your shirt? if you need to imagine other options it means you only have the one?), if i interpret you charitably you might have thought i meant "imaginative" as in not realistic. but i simply meant there are other possibilities. the phrase "failure of imagination" has a somewhat technical definition: it means something obvious in retrospect that most people didnt think about until after a fact. like how it is obvious a plane could be hijacked. if i had to guess, id say the common conception (at least in NA) that there aren't other options to fight this virus is possibly because public knowledge of the pandemic is largely via news/entertainment media (compare for reference any other subject matter).

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

#579

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jariel wrote: post #573
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe so. But protecting the 1st Amendment rights of its users is not one of those "constitutional concerns".

Let the courts decide.

IANAL, but if I understand correctly, this is quite clear legally.

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

#580

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #572
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Operation Enduring Freedom, the Iraq War, the Patriot act, etc, were all based on the premise of defending our freedom, when the reality is Iraq nor Al-Qaeda posed any existential threat to it. The reason freedoms are often infringed upon in times of crisis are because it is often pragmatic to do so. Also, most of these protestors have little to any idea how the US government works, let alone how its founding father'…

No, they are not. Maybe someone said that, but it is quite obvious you don't go to fight in Afghanistan to protect your free speech or the right to bear arms, is it?

That someone is the entire US military. Operation Enduring Freedom.

As for the patriot act, from justice department:

> the Patriot Act has played a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life.

Post reply on HN