621–630 of 923 posts
Please know that this stopped working the moment we went past the artisanal era of content moderation - which was before the Cable news cycle effect. At the scale we operate at now, not moderating content guarantees that malformed information Packets that take advantage of neural and social weaknesses will proliferate over “truth”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point m…
You've certainly repeated this same comment a number of times, maybe it helps you feel like you believe it more. The WHO tweeted about a study with a preliminary conclusion that there is no human to human transmission. Whatever other statements that the WHO made, you seem to be denying that by tweeting this they did not by default endorse the results. They added no other context - they shouldn't tweet something they…
"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus"
There is a world of difference between "no human to human transmission" as you claim they said and "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" as they actually said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "marketplace of ideas" clearly doesn't work for the betterment of mankind and the world. Corporate interests throw vast amounts of money into astroturf campaigns, creating propaganda and misinformation, in order to discredit their opponents, who do not have the same access to funds and influence. Google, FB et.al. are part of the problem, with their deep influences in politics. They ban the token nutjob like Icke…
It's incredibly unlikely you'll agree with the powers that be on every issue, so you'll find yourself deplatformed, and unable to speak out against injustice. As you mentioned, you feel that the powers that be are suppressing certain ideas. If you want censorship, guess who will be in charge of deciding what to censor. Sure, astroturfing and other misinformation campaigns can happen if speech is truly free, but the a…
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. No ifs or buts about that.
In the same breath, it is very important to realize that your freedom of speech does not absolve you from responsibility for what you say. It does not obligate others to facilitate your speech, it does not entitle you to any platform you wish, and it does not obligate anyone to listen to you.
Similarly to the second amendment, which enshrines your right to own weapons (being the foundation of a well-regulated militia and so on) does not obligate anyone to provide you with weapons, nor the facilities to train with and maintain weapons, and it certainly doesn't require anyone to admit your onto their property if you are currently holding any weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content". Some people, after being exposed to misi…
"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?" The existence of technology as well as science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The WHO seems to have been embarrassingly wrong or overconfident on many accounts: 1. Global air travel does not need to be stopped. 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. 3. There is still a "window of opportunity". 4. Masks don't work (but health workers need them!). 5. The CFR is like 4%.
> 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point m…
They did, however, say that there was "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". That claim in GP's post is at least partially accurate if disingenuous for argument's sake (I would counter that "no clear evidence" is a much less strong claim than "no evidence".)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you are to just claim that someone made something up, you must yourself raise the standard and provide a scientific or otherwise evidential source. Vice in this article links to evidential sources while summarizing the findings. You should bother reading it and what it links to. ALSO, and this is a bug fucking also, that's not how the burden of evidence for claims works! You just argued against falsifiability! O…
I was responding to you, not the OP. Most statements on HN are not immediately backed by sources, as this is not a scientific forum. But if you are just gonna tell someone they are full of shit, you should have some solid data behind it rather than a questionable clickbait rag that may or may not be cherry picking and massaging its own sources.
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. When they do not provide proof of their claim, and another person calls it "full of shit", it is not valid to shift the burden of proof onto them to disprove the original claim.
And there's a great reason for this - the bullshit asymmetry principle: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content". Some people, after being exposed to misi…
Do you have evidence that censorship wins over lies? Considering that one of the most fundamental and important US laws is freedom of speech, it behooves you to prove that censorship works, not that free speech works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My mistake, here is what the WHO said: > "If you do not have any respiratory symptoms...you do not need to wear a medical mask" Which is somehow worse.
I've yet to see any actual evidence that wearing a cloth mask while social distancing helps you, as a healthy individual. And I've seen some to the contrary[0]. One of the WHO's main concerns is to prevent shortages and supply chain issues (see their statements about travel and import bans). A run on medical masks is problematic, and the WHO's guidance prevents that. I'll note that basically no government suggested (…
Assuming you mean "in the USA" there since a whole bunch of places around the world made them compulsory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19...
I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#/media...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer content not to be prohibited at all. Content is not a problem. Actions are a problem. Watch all the videos you like telling you to burn down a cell tower. Once you do burn down a cell tower, then you go to jail. Perhaps we should also then hold the people telling people to burn down cell towers responsible, criminally and civilly, for the people who listen to them. David Icke might not be so cavalier a…
If you’re worried about freedom of speech, then giving more people standing to sue David Icke for taking his dumb advice would be far more stifling than allowing YT to ban people. This would basically allow anyone with deep enough pockets to police speech using the courts.
Which, tbf, the US and UK already have to some degree.
