Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
1–10 of 970 posts
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#2[flagged]
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#3[flagged]
I agree, and I like to add there is a difference between censorship of information and stopping propaganda. Some groups make a claim (say against vaccination) which is fine by itself, but when people run with it, amplify it to influence others, then it goes into propaganda territory.
Healthy debates need a good context and a platform that allows for that. I don’t know of many platforms except here in HN and perhaps the debates I had in IRC channels.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#4[flagged]
I'm very curious about the folks pushing vaccines
6,000 scientists signed the John Snow Memorandum which states
“there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.”
https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/john-snow-memo.html
The CDC director is a signer here.
This is so obviously likely totally false it's mind boggling.
We've been told by experts that
a) masks don't work - despite the fact that they've historically worked against other airborne pathogens.
b) that a cloth mask is fine.
...
and the list goes on.
I ignored this and believed in the "misinformation" of N95 with a vent which dramatically increases comfort and wearability.
Now we are are told that natural immunity from our immune system, which has handled MANY MANY influenzas and diseases of the past, doesn't work against COVID, despite evidence from things like SARS and MERS that the immune system remains pretty darn amazing with longer lasting protection.
You can't actually get hard data on this claim, despite insanely high case rates that should make analysis trivial.
So again a likely lie by the vaccine pushers, that if you've been infected with covid you are are not at reduced risk of re-infection.
I'll give it three months and watch them eat crow again.
Honestly, there is no excuse for this crap from those who insist on lecturing us about "dangers to society". We need honesty, integrity and facts, not lecturing, hectoring and lies.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#5[flagged]
"excuse to argue against it" is a very slippery slope.
There should be no excuses required to exercise free speech and free inquiry.
All you've attempted to do here is impugn the motives of those holding a position contrary to your own without addressing their arguments.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#6[flagged]
You're taking an experimental prophylactic against a disease with a 99.9% survival rate. Probably higher if you're under 50. And we still don't really know how safe it is, because the 'gold standard' data (double blind testing) is absent, save for 2 months' of Pfizer data. Your benefit has apparently outweighed your cost. Fine. Mine hasn't. I like to read any and all opinions, regardless of 'bias'. We all have biases, whether we realise or not. I'm intelligent enough to figure them out. I don't need 'we' getting 'an idea' of 'the bias'. I'll probably get flagged/banned/cancelled for my opinion, but such is life.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#7[flagged]
I agree, and I like to add there is a difference between censorship of information and stopping propaganda. Some groups make a claim (say against vaccination) which is fine by itself, but when people run with it, amplify it to influence others, then it goes into propaganda territory. Healthy debates need a good context and a platform that allows for that. I don’t know of many platforms except here in HN and perhaps t…
There is no difference. Just label anything you want to censor as propaganda.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#8[flagged]
You're taking an experimental prophylactic against a disease with a 99.9% survival rate. Probably higher if you're under 50. And we still don't really know how safe it is, because the 'gold standard' data (double blind testing) is absent, save for 2 months' of Pfizer data. Your benefit has apparently outweighed your cost. Fine. Mine hasn't. I like to read any and all opinions, regardless of 'bias'. We all have biases…
Even if you're wrong, I think it's interesting that the only lever they think they have to change your mind is "force you." The idea of having a serious dialogue is so far from their minds (maybe because of decades of training in PR disaster scenarios - chemical spills, manufacturing accidents, drugs that kill - where the establishment is unambiguously in the wrong?) that even when they're right, they act like they're wrong.
If the CEO of CNN wanted to convince their toddler to go to the bathroom, they'd start by compiling dossiers to discredit anyone with large bladders.
('They', in this, refers to the media/corporate PR/press release system that is used to determine public opinion.)
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#9The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities.
We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time.
So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc.
We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Because when we start to doubt them, we then inevitably elect alternative bodies, simply due to limited thinking capacity/time - as explained above it's impossible to do otherwise, no-one derives from first principles every opinion they hold.
The best way, _overall_, to convince someone to do something, is by clearly explaining to them the positives and negatives and letting them come to their own conclusion.
It doesn't always work, and there are specific situations (e.g. someone is holding a gun to your face) in which the cost/benefit analysis is very different - in such a situation, the short term is all that exists, the long term effect of misplaced trust is irrelevant - you simply have to neutralize them.
But in general, I'm absolutely sure that education over coercion is the correct approach for society.
Because if you force them, sure, you've got a short term win, at the long term cost of trust. What is the long term cost of lost trust?
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, and I like to add there is a difference between censorship of information and stopping propaganda. Some groups make a claim (say against vaccination) which is fine by itself, but when people run with it, amplify it to influence others, then it goes into propaganda territory. Healthy debates need a good context and a platform that allows for that. I don’t know of many platforms except here in HN and perhaps t…
There is no difference. Just label anything you want to censor as propaganda.
That is a unsubstantive statement in my view. Who is labeling here, why and what context?