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

Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 421 posts

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#411

Post by asdff »

jancsika wrote: post #267
kstenerud wrote: post #244

If you think it's bad now, wait until "activists" have easy access to AI that most people can't distinguish from real humans. It's simple: Just pick a target of your ire, be it someone with ideological, political, lifestyle differences, or just someone you don't like, point your AI bot to it, and watch it harass your victim and anyone associated with them, until they lose their job, reputation, friends, family, etc.…

> If you think it's bad now, wait until "activists" have easy access to AI that most people can't distinguish from real humans. I'd bet you could experience this right now if you start researching and posting on topics like "Free Tibet" and the current geopolitical situation in Ukraine. Edit: possibly with a paid human instead of an AI, but with a nation-state budget it's equivalent.

The only reason why the Internet Research Agency and similar propaganda machines are staffed with people and not a well designed AI is that people are far cheaper and more flexible in what they can do. Training and retraining an AI takes time and a large dataset which takes time to build, and time is money.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#412

Post by bluntfang »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #391
bluntfang wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

could you point to some documentation on this please?

I know almost NOTHING about the people mentioned below. They're just names that I happened to catch in the news about their accounts being closed or they came up in a google search I just did. I'm certainly not implying support for them or their ideas. Some comic creator https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/02/21/chase-bank-shuts-d... Some Proud Boys leader https://bigleaguepolitics.com/chase-bank-shuts-down-proud-bo.…

So they are banning terrorists who have possible money laundering schemes. I'm OK with this.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#413

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #327
HeadsUpHigh wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Race is a meaningful medical category since it appears that certain diseases that have a genetic background are more common on some races than others. So it's not a biological race in the sense that you have different genes but the different variations that appear are important( an example is that esophagus cancer is many times more common on Chinese people compared to Western people, a trend that is maintained on im…

Yes but in those cases the role of race is not causal but correlative. It just happens that because more people classified as part of one race have evolved in an environment that has led to medically significant genetic differences from other humans, that those genetic differences correlate with 'race'. But race has nothing to do with it whatsoever. We only use race to speak about statistical medical populations beca…

I think you are missing the point. There is something in the Chinese genetic profile that increases the chances of a specific type of cancer. This is useful on it's own. Just because the different "races" converged again before geographical separation was maintained long enough to make them genetically incompatible doesn't mean that some differences haven't already propagated in these populations. The increased risk of cancer is exactly a result of being a member of the specific genetic race and thus carrying said gene, not the other way around. There is clearly a causative role, even if we don't know what it is step by step.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#414

Post by Consultant32452 »

bluntfang wrote: post #412
Consultant32452 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know almost NOTHING about the people mentioned below. They're just names that I happened to catch in the news about their accounts being closed or they came up in a google search I just did. I'm certainly not implying support for them or their ideas. Some comic creator https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/02/21/chase-bank-shuts-d... Some Proud Boys leader https://bigleaguepolitics.com/chase-bank-shuts-down-proud-bo.…

So they are banning terrorists who have possible money laundering schemes. I'm OK with this.

Have any of those characters actually been convicted of money laundering or terrorism? I actually don't know. The only one I'm vaguely familiar with is Alex Jones, and as far as I can tell he's like a modern tabloid guy.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#415

Post by joejerryronnie »

btilly wrote: post #345
joejerryronnie wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who’s to say which group’s reality is real and which group’s reality is false? In the end it boils down to politics and public perception - or in today’s world, whichever group is more effective in leveraging the large online platforms to their advantage.

Whatever side is more populated with people who think that is an important question, is likely to be the side that I'm against. Reality is. I am willing to accept that the best well-conducted research available is a better guide to that than my own knowledge unless it is in one of the very limited areas where I have personal expertise. And those are very, very limited areas indeed.

I agree with you personally, but the cynic in me believes the vast majority of people fall under the category of my original post.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#416

Post by rmc »

drm237 wrote: post #122
alexandercrohde wrote: post #109

I'm not seeing anybody else suggest what seems to me to be the obvious solution: opt out of twitter (which seems like a self-abuse platform) and filter your email. Part of why communication works is because we can't hear everybody's opinion on everything. People earn the right to our ear through networking and earning our company. Twitter undoing this is not progress.

When people call your place of business and complain to your boss about your methods and mental state, when they lobby the government to open investigations into your research under the accusation of child abuse, and when they use every available method to discredit your life's work, I don't think that simply opting-out of Twitter is likely to make a meaningful difference unfortunately.

Defamation law exists for a reason. Or harassment law.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#417

Post by nabnob »

djsumdog wrote: post #309
nabnob wrote: post #127

This is also happening with research on detransition - >Bath Spa University is conducting an internal inquiry into claims that it turned down an application for research on gender reassignment reversal because it was “potentially politically incorrect” and would attract criticism on social media. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/25/bath-spa-u...

I find this so problematic. There are a number of psychologists who are being pushed heavily by social and transrights groups to always suggest transitioning as an option. This goes against one of those classic staples of what we teach people growing up: "You need to be okay with who you are." Helping someone be okay with their own gender shouldn't be an ethically questionable treatment to offer. After all there are…

Activists successfully shut down the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic (GIC), in Toronto run by Dr. Kenneth Zucker, formerly one of the leading researchers on trans health, who led the team that wrote the DSM-5 criteria for gender dysphoria.

These activists claimed that his clinic was using "conversion therapy". Instead of following the gender affirmative approach, this clinic instead had child patients work through their dysphoria with therapy and explore their gender with play. His research found that 80% of children with gender dysphoria usually end up desisting and leading healthy lives, which directly contradicts the narrative that children who are gender non conforming need to get on dangerous puberty blockers. https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-r...

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#418

Post by NikkiA »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #142
theli0nheart wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you tell someone their back pain is caused by repressed emotions, you get what happens in the article. But...you would (or could?, or should?) never tell someone that, because how would you know? Maybe there is some link but to conclude that it could be the case is pretty silly. So it's not like that's a stigma, it's just a statement not based in fact that evokes a strong reaction because you're telling someone…

Yeah, I think the thing a lot of commenters are missing is that the medical field itself has a pretty bad history of telling people "it's all in your head" when there turned out to be specific, treatable biological causes. This is especially true for CFS, where for a long time it was seen not just to be psychosomatic, but actually "not really that bad." As another example, stress was blamed as the main cause of ulcer…

For most of the '00s and around '10-12, CFS wasn't even seen as a real thing, but purely imaginary.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#419

Post by [deleted] »

erentz wrote: post #159
rfugger wrote: post #113

I have chronic fatigue syndrome since a bad viral infection in 2001. I find this article quite unfortunate. There is plenty of good research being done into CFS that does not generate the outrage that the PACE trial has. There are many reasons that particular study has been the focus of campaigners while other researchers are encouraged or left in peace, but I would encourage those who are coming to this issue here f…

Hi, fellow here who also meets the ME/CFS criteria. These articles in which Sharpe and Weasley pop up are always very disturbing because they cry “ow, poor me, the big mean activists are attacking science!!” And it’s surprisingly effective as seen in this thread. People assume they’re doing real science, and the activists are of the bad type. But in this case it’s Sharpe and is colleagues that aren’t doing real scien…

[deleted]

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#420

Post by beobab »

ethbro wrote: post #14
beobab wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need vs want. I don't NEED a computer at home, nor a mobile phone. But I want one. And I am allowed to have one. And someone else's dislike of my having those things does not stop me from being allowed to have them

Possibly a bit need? I'm not sure if academia actually uses Twitter to network, but I wouldn't be surprised. Last exposure to university was in proto-FB days. Per analogy, one could probably argue that you need a phone of some sort (per professional expectations).

During work: I think it depends on your profession. If your job does not involve interacting other humans in any way, or you are all in the same room, then you do not need a phone to communicate.

Job hunting: This would be significantly harder without a personal phone, but regular trips to a recruitment agent's office could make it possible. I can certainly see that it would be a significant advantage to have a phone.

At home: Hugely depends on how far and wide your family have spread. If they are all within walking distance, then you don't need a phone. Sure it's more convenient, and sure, you'll spend a lot of time outside people's houses wondering if they're actually in, but that's how I grew up without a mobile phone. Interestingly, I would counter-argue (with myself) that you do need a phone if you are the only family member in a remote area, if only for your mental health.

Emergencies: Yes, sometimes you just need a phone.

So yes. A bit need.

Post reply on HN