The first problem is that people would get their news from a place like Facebook... That's like taking stock market advice from the guy that Mows your lawn
Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
431–440 of 654 posts
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why they can't add a regex to ok *.gov$ websites. > Nevertheless, the level of carelessness upon which this mechanism seems to have been built upon is an embarrassment. Same mechanism would flag and ban folks who argued that the lab leak hypothesis was a possibility and was worth investigating... Interesting how the media changed their narrative on this one.
Are we sure government websites won’t contain misinformation? For example, senior government leadership was advising the consumption of bleach as a COVID-19 cure.
> was advising the consumption of bleach as a COVID-19 cure
I researched this extensively. That never happened and people still spreading this shows the damage media and politicians have done.
He said "disinfectant", not bleach.
If you watch the press briefing in context, Bill Bryan, Under Secretary for Science and Technology at DHS was saying right prior to Trump: “Our most striking observation to date is the powerful effect that solar light appears to have on killing the virus, both surfaces and in the air. We’ve seen a similar effect with both temperature and humidity as well, where increasing the temperature and humidity or both is generally less favorable to the virus. The virus dies the quickest in the presence of direct sunlight under these conditions. We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids, and I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes,” Bryan said. “Isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing. Just bring it on and leaving it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster.” Bryan talked about the half-life of the coronavirus on surfaces like door handles and stainless steel surfaces, saying that when they “inject” UV rays into the mix along with high temperatures and increased humidity that the virus dies quickly.
After this, Trump said: "So, I’m going to ask Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing when we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful." Trump then clarified his remarks: “It wouldn’t be through injections, you’re talking about almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big affect if it’s on a stationary object.” “If they’re outside, right, and their hands are exposed to the sun, will that kill it as though it were a piece of metal or something else?” Trump asked.
In that context Trump was talking about this technology of using UV lights which got patented the same week he mentioned cleaning inside:
Disinfectant to clean lungs: “Injecting light” could be referring to Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation.
Methylene blue photochemical and another light therapy studies which came out that week:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-17718/v1
Aytu BioScience Signs Exclusive Global License with Cedars-Sinai for Potential Coronavirus Treatment: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/aytu-bioscience-signs-exclusi...
https://apnews.com/b44f4531071e6204023f7b8e16f59d4b
SEC filed 4 days ago before:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385818/000165495420...
> Led by Mark Pimentel, MD, the research team of the Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program at Cedars-Sinai has been developing the patent-pending Healight platform since 2016 and has produced a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating pre-clinical safety and effectiveness of the technology as an antiviral and antibacterial treatment.
Possibility of Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in Human Respiratory Tract by Controlled Ethanol Vapor Inhalation by Tsumoru Shintake:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.12444
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2qsNqD...
UV light to treat disease in the blood: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783265/?fbclid...
Columbia researcher David Brenner believes far-UVC light—safe for humans, but lethal for viruses—could be a ‘game changer.’:
https://news.columbia.edu/ultraviolet-technology-virus-covid...
A disinfectant does not need to be a harsh chemical or bleach. A disinfectant can be heat, radiation, UV light, etc. Many people consider a lung lavage a method of disinfecting the lung by “washing” it out.
They’ve released technology that is using UV light to sterilize N95 masks due to the shortage. It’s now officially FDA approved. They have been putting babies under ultraviolet light for jaundice, for as long as I can remember. It is not new. They’re also using UV light to sterilize ambulances between runs because of the virus.
No reasonable person would take this to claim Trump was telling people to inject bleach. Media and politician ideologues destroyed their credibility when they spread misinformation while claiming to be against it.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#433You know for all the crap Google gets at least they will show up on a lot of Google posts here and say "Yeah that sucks" when their organization messes up. Facebook? Nada.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#434An irony here is that Facebook is now censoring the CDC, when it previously claimed that it was censoring using the guidelines of the CDC . Another irony is that the White House said that it was flagging comments for Facebook fact-checkers just last week: “We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s Office. We are flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation…
The same press secretary claims vaccines have gone through FDA approval when none of them have:
> "This is what they’re — what the information — some of this misinformation is doing — and misleads the public by falsely alleging that mRNA vaccines are untested and, thus, risky, even though many of them are approved and have gone through the gold standard of the FDA approval process."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
The people who talk about misinformation are often the biggest source of misinformation.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my profession is vaccine hesitancy and persuasion researcher Can't get if this is sarcasm or not. If true, it's scary how fast micro-fields are created and funded once there is a political purpose behind it, so that policies can be rubber-stamped as science. If false, nice troll.
Vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of human lives. Human lives are valuable. Refusal to get vaccinated against things like measles, polio, smallpox, or COVID-19 cause a lot of unnecessary deaths, which destroys a lot of valuable things. Just as spending on loss prevention in stores can easily produce a net positive impact on the store's balance sheet, reducing the rate of unnecessary destruction of human life (…
The thing that really hammers home that there's something to study here is that we basically eliminated polio through vaccination campaigns, and we did this in my lifetime. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative was launched in 1988 (one year after I was launched), and since then the number of annual cases has dropped by 99.9%, from 350/year to a handful. 2% of the people that contracted polio suffered paralysis, which would necessitate living in an iron lung to keep breathing.
Before last year, I would have said that the clear and obvious harms of polio were the reason so many people got vaccinated that polio is basically eradicated. But since the start of COVID, over 10 million humans have died miserable deaths from COVID, yet so many people reject the vaccine.
There's an extremely grave threat, but there's also an easy way to gain near complete invincibility to that threat, but tens of millions of people in just the US are refusing invincibility to COVID. 99.2% of US COVID deaths now are among the unvaccinated [0]! 99.2%!!! Clearly there's something going on to make so many people make such an irrational choice, and that's worth studying, as the benefit of getting a few more people to embrace invulnerability is worth so much more than the cost of funding some research and outreach.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/08/fears-of-new...
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is removing content because they wanted to make money with a website, and the job of statecraft fell in their laps in the process. They didn't volunteer, they aren't qualified, nobody told them they were signing up to run a kingdom, let alone the world. So they don't produce lofty, philosophical, well-thought-out positions on free speech and human rights. They don't carefully manage the public square with th…
Excellent post! Yes, Facebook has found itself wielding power that it could have never imagined. Nobody is prepared or qualified for that kind of power. That's why it took 700 years from the Magna Carta until the US Constitution to formulate a reasonable contract to limit such power. Now you have the most dangerous combination of all. The two ingredients which when combined has resulted in horrific atrocities. The pa…
But Facebook is a private company & Facebook can do whatever it wants...And Facebook, being a Corporation, has the same rights as a person...
A glib argument? Sure. But this was the same argument used to censor other political speech. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
The view of "if we just implement it right" it will be fine is a fallacy. These organizations represent immense power through influence. By their very existence arises the conflict power and truth. If you can have influence over the fact checkers, then you have influence over truth. Who would you trust to form such an organization? Where is the oversight? Who monitors the monitors? We are seeing what "reasonable cens…
>The view of "if we just implement it right" it will be fine is a fallacy. Good thing I didn't say that then. The original comment that I was challenging said there was no such thing as fact checking. "Fact checking is hard" is not an argument in support of the idea that fact checking doesn't exist as a concept. >We are seeing what "reasonable censorship" actually looks like. It is an oxymoron. What is your definitio…
Yes, what is bound by law is not an option. However, in most cases the law should handle it. Meaning that the post remains unless some legal action is taken as the host often can't just know the legal status except in the more obvious case of child porn etc.
It is censorship when it is out of the control of users. It is filtering when the user has a choice.
Yes, users want to see or not see some categories of content. That certainly is not a problem when it is presented to the user as a choice.
There are platforms that operate mostly in this method, like MeWe.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet will kill most every institution that predated it. Citizen journalism killed media. Netflix/YouTube killed Hollywood. Blockchains will replace 51% democracy with 100% democracy. Dying inherited institutions are grasping to stay relevant with appeals to authoritarianism. Free speech is now a hinderance and a liability to their existence. As their relevance dwindles, tyranny becomes their only tool.
None of this is accurate. Craigslist killed newspapers (it took their ad revenue). Citizen journalism hasn't replaced that; buzzfeed-style sites did. Hollywood is thriving. Netflix is also thriving. If Netflix is killing anything, it's cable providers. Blockchains have produced nothing of worth, especially if you consider anything outside of cryptocurrency (but let's be real, cryptocurrency is also worthless)
> Craigslist killed newspapers (it took their ad revenue) Citizen journalism hasn't replaced that; buzzfeed-style sites did.
Craigslist killed classified ads (in the US). Twitter and Substack replaced investigative pieces, leaving legacy media companies reduced to peddling outrage for clicks.
> Hollywood is thriving.
The Golden Globes are over. Last year's Emmys saw the lowest viewership of any Emmy ceremony in the Television Academy’s history[1]. COVID killed the cinema[2]. AI is diminishing any production advantages that remain.
> Blockchains have produced nothing of worth, especially if you consider anything outside of cryptocurrency (but let's be real, cryptocurrency is also worthless)
That's demonstrably untrue given Bitcoin has a market cap larger than all but 20 countries[3]. Blockchains allow, for the first time in history, humans to coordinate at scale without human intermediaries. Only dead weight bureaucrats, machiavellian statists, and the innumerate who have been sold lies from the former would argue that blockchains are worthless.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/21/emmys-2020-primetime-awards-...
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reasonable, substantial difference between not allowing material deemed indecent- porn and gore- and becoming an arbiter of "truth".
So you say, but is there really? What about hate speech? Should that go there? If not, now we need to decide what is and isn't hate speech, which is itself contentious. And material "deemed indecent" could also be newsworthy, so it's not really simple to apply even this standard. It's a pretty clear trend: every supposed "free speech platform" ends up having to have active content moderation to actually make it a sit…
> So you say, but is there really?
Yes. The US has managed fine with exactly such a dichotomy. The reason it’s easy to draw a bright line at obscenity/porn is because you know it when you see it.
> What about hate speech? Should that go there?
No, but speech inciting violence is pretty easy to recognize. Again, First Amendment jurisprudence has developed clear rules for this.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for a thoughtful response! I agree more referendums would get to a better level of participatory democracy. Though on any specific issue it could still be a 51% win with 49% going away angry. I'm not sure how blockchains makes more frequent referendums easier. Maybe harder to game the system? Apart from that it seems like a platform for regular referendums could be built without blockchains. It's still relativ…
Math is more trustworthy than the state. One of the few things both Democrats and Republicans can agree on is the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Political representation becomes obsolete with blockchains that can facilitate a referendum on every issue without the need for centralised trust.
Second reply
> Political representation becomes obsolete with blockchains that can facilitate a referendum on every issue without the need for centralised trust
The choice of representative democracy was not because of the difficulty of counting votes. The founding fathers very clearly rejected what you're proposing. It's because most people are grossly ignorant about most things, and their opinion shouldn't be counted. If you can't pass a high school math class, I honestly don't care about your opinion on climate change.
The blockchain solves none of that.