481–490 of 736 posts
As for policy consequences, how about this one: The United States directly and indirectly funded the Wuhan laboratory, and so bears some responsibility for the virus. It also appears Fauci and others were aware of the deficiencies of the institution. The US should end its support for dangerous research in institutions outside of its purview.
There’s a question as to why that fake consensus emerged. But I think the more troubling question is: How did people let the original story of what Tom Cotton even said go so badly awry? Essentially Cotton said something that was then transformed into a fake claim of a Chinese bio-attack, then the fake claim was debunked, and then the debunking was applied to the real claim with little attention paid to ongoing disag…
My strong suspicion is that this is true across domains of expertise, and is creating a lot of bubbles of fake consensus that can become very misleading. And I don’t have a solution."
I've also found this to be true on HN, though slightly less so. The above comment might be an example, where it oversimplifies something and everyone just appears to agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know they are false? And completely false, at that? Just asking.
It's insane to me that anyone on this site is even asking this. What's next: Should I be led to believe those little ads at the bottom aren't scams? The ones that say something like, "SHOCKING! Dentists in don't want you to know this trick that could save you thousands." Maybe the guy trying to sell me speakers from his van really is a trustworthy guy. I just got a call from someone saying my laptop is infected with…
If you read Matt Levine’s Bloomberg column (I highly recommend it) then you’ll eventually encounter a point he repeatedly makes about institutional investing: the best opportunities are always right at the edge of comfortable. Hidden gems tend to hang out in the same neighborhoods as outright frauds, metaphorically speaking.
I check ZeroHedge daily, not because I “trust” it as a news source, but in accordance with the principle I alluded to above: the really good stuff is probably going to be hidden among outright conspiracy theories and psyops. Most of the crap on ZH is just crossposts from various blogs anyway so it’s pretty easy to filter through it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each site seemed to be funneling you into a single source of truth and way of not only thinking, but FEELING about an event. Which is a big problem. In the intelligence community, people are taught to distinguish between data items from different sources, which may indicate confirmation, and data items from the same source via different paths, which don't.
I think this is a good place for authorship attribution AI's. A plugin that will identify text that resembles known PR and propaganda and links to the original source. Is this a real review or is this person writing their review from a script? Am I interacting with a real person or someone paid to sway the public opinion of something on a forum? Edit: Maybe we could prevent more influence by Satya @ MS and the like.…
Trump derangement syndrome guaranteed this outcome.
Reap what you sow. American mainstream media is pure propaganda, full stop. The national voice is the pr teams of our most valuable corporations. The patient is dead.
When was the last time you thought about what Julian Assange is going through?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we accept that taking action against misinformation is good, then this sort of mistake will inevitably happen. If you're in favor of taking action against misinformation, then you should be willing to accept this situation as an acceptable failure. I'm not willing to accept that.
That assumes a binary situation, but it can be a sliding scale. A system that prevents only Holocaust denial and flat earth theories is unlikely to ban anything that is actually true.
There’s a question as to why that fake consensus emerged. But I think the more troubling question is: How did people let the original story of what Tom Cotton even said go so badly awry? Essentially Cotton said something that was then transformed into a fake claim of a Chinese bio-attack, then the fake claim was debunked, and then the debunking was applied to the real claim with little attention paid to ongoing disag…
Each site seemed to be funneling you into a single source of truth and way of not only thinking, but FEELING about an event. Which is a big problem. In the intelligence community, people are taught to distinguish between data items from different sources, which may indicate confirmation, and data items from the same source via different paths, which don't.
Is it? What if the alternative is that people feel the wrong way about things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is kind of doing the same thing that the “fact checkers” are doing. There is indeed a lack of proper studies to validate it. That’s the problem. There are mountains of evidence that show it as very promising and worthy of a proper study. That’s what people are asking for. The FDA keeps saying not to use it, because we don’t know for certain that it works, because we haven’t had any rigorous RCTs to validate it,…
The FDA doesn't tell people what to research, it tells the public what existing research confirms is safe to use. If a bunch of scientists think iverwhatever is viable they can do a proper study on it and get it published and peer reviewed. To "drop everything" would be criminally negligent, there's lots of things that can and should be researched in parallel.
That said, there are published RCT showing Ivermectin effectiveness.
In my second link on my first comment, there's a talk about the overwhelming data, censorship and hindrances for publishing.
Sharing evidence on Ivermectin - Dr. Tess Lawrie
"The boy who cried wolf", comes to mind. If you spout a bunch of nonsense about Climate Change being a hoax, don't be too surprised when a lot of people start ignoring or even deriding the things you say. Even if the wolf does eventually show up.