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

Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

disinformationchronicle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 192 posts

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#121

Post by dylan604 »

charcircuit wrote: post #66
nickpeterson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry are you arguing that this is a reasonable course for Monsanto to take? How about they just disclose when products are shown to cause cancer and try to make ones that don’t?

I'm just saying in general if it were to happen. Should they just let everyone dog pile onto their company and do nothing?

In the words of Jimmy McNulty, "What the f** did I do?"

Part of being on top of the pile is taking hits. Comes with the territory, and if can't staff up for it with all your earnings, then tough cookies.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#122

Post by saghm »

anikan_vader wrote: post #88
nickpeterson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue publishing a journal is a very public thing, note the root word of publishing.

What about publishing an HN comment? At the root of it, they’re both means of publicly disseminating information.

I think "public figure" refers to how well known the person is. In this case, I'd guess that a way larger group of people read the journal than will read these comments.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#123

Post by fartcannon »

pronlover723 wrote: post #74
pmoriarty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask the same thing about Facebook and Google employees, and people who work for "defense" contractors.

What is wrong with working for Facebook or Google? I'd expect most Facebook employees working on the main project feel like they are doing good in the world helping people connect with their friends and families, organizing events, etc... For Google I'd expect most employees feel like their products (search, android, chrome, chrome os, maps, gmail, etc...) help billions of people in positive ways.

They made a profit building some of the most pervasive anti-privacy software in the world. Google continually attempts to ruin the web, and communication (email), and Facebook uses AI to make people miserable.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#124

Post by eurasiantiger »

epgui wrote: post #80
tptacek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've defended Monsanto repeatedly on HN (there are some extraordinarily popular beliefs about Monsanto that turn out, from what I can tell, to be just completely false, and they used to wind up here a bunch). I'm not carrying any water for them. I'm pro-GMO just in principle, but neutral-to-skeptical about any company of Monsanto's size. I'm sure the company itself is perfectly amoral. I'm just calling actual issues…

+1 I’m a biochemist and while I’m not interested in sticking my neck out to defend any company, a lot of the criticism directed at Monsanto is unfair, uninformed and/or unintelligent. This is particularly true of criticism levied against glyphosate (one of the least-bad herbicides I know of) and GMOs (which people are usually just super confused about). Disclaimer: zero conflict of interest, I make all my money build…

No post body was provided.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#125

Post by moistly »

tptacek wrote: post #94
nickpeterson wrote: post #9

I think a more effective strategy might be shaming individuals who make up the company. Just start buying internet ads with a persons name and how they wrote reports to try and convince people something that caused cancer didn’t cause cancer.

How's that strategy working out for the antivax movement?

Canadians generally (to a supermajority level) dislike the unvaccinated, shun them, and would see them pay a healthcare surtax. Employers don’t want them around.

https://nationalpost.com/news/tensions-high-between-vaccinat...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poll-shows-...

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/01/12/canada-poll-unvaccina...

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/majority-of-canadian-small-busin...

The convoy was despised as well.

https://www.cp24.com/news/almost-2-3rds-of-canadians-oppose-...

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#126

Post by harry8 »

seattle_spring wrote: post #113
harry8 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe say so plainly rather than faking at playing dumb? What you're assuming was meant wasn't actually said either. Make your case. Make well. Make it clearly and forcefully but please don't go in for those kind of hollywood-drama-style courtroom argument tricks, it's not helpful to any given discussion.

The intent you're claiming isn't anywhere in the person's posts. All they said was that they didn't want to get into the morality argument in this forum, which is a reasonable position to have given there are people like you chomping at the bit to "prove him wrong" or whatever. Chill out, guy.

I did not claim any intent.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#127

Post by acidburnNSA »

tptacek wrote: post #23
diogenescynic wrote: post #2

Monsanto also pays shills to comment positively about pesticide use and try to brow beat anyone who is has a negative opinion their products. It's crazy how aggressive it is. Basically any thread on Twitter or Reddit the same users will defend Monsanto. You see the same thing about other controversial products, such as BPAs. It seems like some tactic they learned from Big Tobacco and Big Oil to just push as much doub…

I've defended Monsanto repeatedly on HN (there are some extraordinarily popular beliefs about Monsanto that turn out, from what I can tell, to be just completely false, and they used to wind up here a bunch). I'm not carrying any water for them. I'm pro-GMO just in principle, but neutral-to-skeptical about any company of Monsanto's size. I'm sure the company itself is perfectly amoral. I'm just calling actual issues…

+1 same stuff happens in nuclear power. I spent 15 years getting trained in the field and every time I say something factual on the internet people scream shill. It's nuts.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#128

Post by fartcannon »

tptacek wrote: post #23
diogenescynic wrote: post #2

Monsanto also pays shills to comment positively about pesticide use and try to brow beat anyone who is has a negative opinion their products. It's crazy how aggressive it is. Basically any thread on Twitter or Reddit the same users will defend Monsanto. You see the same thing about other controversial products, such as BPAs. It seems like some tactic they learned from Big Tobacco and Big Oil to just push as much doub…

I've defended Monsanto repeatedly on HN (there are some extraordinarily popular beliefs about Monsanto that turn out, from what I can tell, to be just completely false, and they used to wind up here a bunch). I'm not carrying any water for them. I'm pro-GMO just in principle, but neutral-to-skeptical about any company of Monsanto's size. I'm sure the company itself is perfectly amoral. I'm just calling actual issues…

What's yet even more funny is the website in your user info is suckpuppet.org. Heavy irony I guess? I hope?

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#129

Post by bryanrasmussen »

colordrops wrote: post #107
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, from my googling around it seems Cochrane holds a high position in the health field when discussing research, sort of similar to the ACM or the IEEE, or maybe the CRA. But I think maybe more guarded of their reputation and the reputation of its publications.

I'm googling around as well, and they seem to be an umbrella for a large number of publications. I just can't believe that every iota of information under their purview is of perfect veracity, regardless of their level of rigor and process. No entity is that perfect.

>No entity is that perfect.

I think people are suggesting not perfection, but a higher standard and thus increased likelihood of it being correct and requiring a higher standard for proving it incorrect or biased.

Do you have an organization that, if they publish something even if it runs counter to your own opinions, you assume that it is fair and likely to be correct?

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#130

Post by [deleted] »

moistly wrote: post #125
tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's that strategy working out for the antivax movement?

Canadians generally (to a supermajority level) dislike the unvaccinated, shun them, and would see them pay a healthcare surtax. Employers don’t want them around. https://nationalpost.com/news/tensions-high-between-vaccinat... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poll-shows-... https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/01/12/canada-poll-unvaccina... https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/majority-of-canadian-small-busin... Th…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN