Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online • Hacker News Board

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#11

Post by tempnow987 » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #8

limecat wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

Yep, this is the real indicator.

What I'm a bit confused about is why they put so much focus on lecturing folks, demanding things, and so little focus on things that would help.

I wore a mask before anyone except folks in Chinatown where I am. I was told not to believe "misinformation" way back then. This was when they were telling us masks did nothing, only wear if you are symptomatic etc.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#12

Post by toolz » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

So many "misinformation censorship" proponents seem to have quickly forgotten just how much literally everyone in public health has spread misinformation this pandemic. It's unavoidable being wrong and often the cost of making claims without unimpeachable evidence is higher than the cost of being wrong. Name me a public health official who regularly made recommendations this pandemic and I'll show you misinformation.

The real issue here, in my opinion, is attributing malice so quickly and with extreme prejudice. Tensions are high and it seems to have become commonplace to assign ill-intent to the other tribe way too easily. In my opinion the answer to all of these problems is compassion and statistical thinking. Most people mean well and often times the only way you can get people to go to extremes is to negatively reinforce them into deeply entrenched tribal thinking.

It will always be a safer assumption to assume somebody means well even when they are wrong. Humans did not become the dominant species on this planet without cooperation and pro-social behaviors.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#13

Post by choward » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

ozfive wrote: post #2

[flagged]

> Can we get an idea of the bias of this mathematician concerning vaccinations? Specifically the Covid-19 vaccines.

> Be vigilant in finding out what the background and intentions are of people making claims such as these.

I swear every time anyone says anything interpreted as "anti vax" the very first thing people do is an ad hominem character attacks. Do you say this about the people pushing mandates hard?

> When hundreds of millions of people have received a vaccination with minimal outcomes of death there is no longer an excuse to argue against it

That's just like your opinion. Even if that's the case people should still be free to choose. There are plenty of people who trust the data and are vaccinated and are against mandates. This will come of as rude but a don't care: people like you are a far bigger danger to society than people who don't believe in vaccine mandates.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#14

Post by tempnow987 » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:53 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #12

So many "misinformation censorship" proponents seem to have quickly forgotten just how much literally everyone in public health has spread misinformation this pandemic. It's unavoidable being wrong and often the cost of making claims without unimpeachable evidence is higher than the cost of being wrong. Name me a public health official who regularly made recommendations this pandemic and I'll show you misinformation.…

The anti mask, anti N95 masks with exhalation valve stuff has been the worst here I think.

If you would let folks wear N95 with exhalation valves (highly comfortable) it just makes it easier for folks to protect themselves (and indirectly others).

And for those who don't care, let's distinguish slightly between making sure those who want to protect themselves as much as possible can, and the need to force people down a path which for the My own view is the battle is largely lost already by the health authorities. Locally we have an indoor mask mandate including offices with all staff fully vaxed, and the natural desire to comply with this has gotten lower and lower if you are pretty spread out in large cubicals etc.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#15

Post by shadowgovt » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:54 PM UTC

throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The 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. Be…

What do you do while education lags where it needs to be? Because enough education to understand, say, climate change takes about a decade.

(... And that's assuming it can be provided without being shut down as "indoctrination").

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#16

Post by zosima » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

ozfive wrote: post #2

[flagged]

A healthy society must have a diversity of opinion, and that includes being allowed to be against vaccination and expressing that viewpoint.

The overton window is getting ridiculously narrow right now and it's definitely not for the benefit of society, truth nor probably even for the general health.

The evidence for the benefits of vaccines can speak for itself, so there is really no point in maligning anyone.

But there is definitely a lot of valid debate on who should be vaccinated and how much, and minimizing the overton window will stifle that debate.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#17

Post by enchiridion » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

prox wrote: post #10

enchiridion wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In any context. If someone thinks or knows something is propaganda they should exercise their free speech to point that out.

Not even propaganda should be censored.

Then again propaganda often implies it’s coming from a government. In that case the people and their representatives should have the power to prevent or retract statements if needed.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#18

Post by shadowgovt » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:57 PM UTC

limecat wrote: post #6

ozfive wrote: post #2

[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…

> I'm intelligent enough to figure them out.

That's the epistemological problem with misinformation.

How does one know one is intelligent enough if one is trying to evaluate from misinformation? Shouldn't the premise "garbage in, garbage out" apply?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#19

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:58 PM UTC

zosima wrote: post #16

ozfive wrote: post #2

[flagged]

A healthy society must have a diversity of opinion, and that includes being allowed to be against vaccination and expressing that viewpoint. The overton window is getting ridiculously narrow right now and it's definitely not for the benefit of society, truth nor probably even for the general health. The evidence for the benefits of vaccines can speak for itself, so there is really no point in maligning anyone. But th…

[deleted]

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#20

Post by toolz » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 10:59 PM UTC

tempnow987 wrote: post #14

toolz wrote: post #12

So many "misinformation censorship" proponents seem to have quickly forgotten just how much literally everyone in public health has spread misinformation this pandemic. It's unavoidable being wrong and often the cost of making claims without unimpeachable evidence is higher than the cost of being wrong. Name me a public health official who regularly made recommendations this pandemic and I'll show you misinformation.…

The anti mask, anti N95 masks with exhalation valve stuff has been the worst here I think. If you would let folks wear N95 with exhalation valves (highly comfortable) it just makes it easier for folks to protect themselves (and indirectly others). And for those who don't care, let's distinguish slightly between making sure those who want to protect themselves as much as possible can, and the need to force people down…

This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't understand generalized masking. At best they flatten the curve, which I think at this point I believe flattening the curve is dangerous. We have pretty well defined risk demographics and if we could have covid seasons come and go quickly I think it gives the high risk demographics the best chance of applying multi-layered defenses against a shorter season of risk.

There is of course the "overcrowded hospital" issue, but I have a hard time coming to terms with that being a real problem - if it were a real problem why has hospital capacity been in decline this entire pandemic? Is it an unsolvable problem or is it just not a real problem outside of fantastically clickable headlines? I lean heavily towards the latter but I could be convinced otherwise.