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

Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

royalsociety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#21

Post by ozfive »

choward wrote: post #13
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 h…

If that's my opinion and people are free to their opinions han why should I or anyone else be downvoted? The mere fact of downvoting an opinion is in fact censorship. The exact thing that all of the arguments against mine are railing against.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#23

Post by [deleted] »

tempnow987 wrote: post #4
ozfive wrote: post #2

[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 th…

[deleted]

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#24

Post by Lammy »

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…

> because we don’t have time

This part is a huge society-wide problem that can theoretically be fixed so people can become more informed and active participants in the framework of their daily lives. Don’t ask me how, though, because I just got off work and am too exhausted to do anything except let the news tell me what to be afraid of today, then probably binge The Office and slam a few brewskis until I fall asleep on my couch ‘cause I got work again tomorrow

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#25

Post by sbmassey »

ozfive wrote: post #2

[flagged]

The bias of this mathematician and the rest of the Royal Society working group regarding vaccination is irrelevant to the subject of these papers, which analyse how and why misinformation is spread, and how correct information can retain credibility.

Reflexively trying to discredit them while being too lazy to read beyond the headline is a great way of making your own position look highly dubious though.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#26

Post by prox »

enchiridion wrote: post #17
prox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe not, it is certainly debatable. But propaganda implies (to me at least) it has gone beyond debate. It also implies a tool to influence others. Aka a form of weaponized information. I do think there is a gradient where one could say “this goes beyond free speech” , for instance as in your example.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#27

Post by faeriechangling »

tempnow987 wrote: post #11
whatshisface wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hahaha I was the same way. I rebelled against scientific authority and wore a mask. It was only months later I was called a sheeple doing whatever the globalists wanted for wearing a mask.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#28

Post by [deleted] »

shadowgovt wrote: post #15
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").

[deleted]

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#30

Post by ozfive »

enchiridion wrote: post #17
prox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN