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

The media's lab leak fiasco

slowboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 736 posts

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#631

Post by 3327 »

neither_color wrote: post #34

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…

Your post is absolutely rubbish. White washing one wrong with another.

If there is no lab leak, its not hard to prove. Why destroy samples and genetic data?

What the author wrote and how its interpretation is material is beyond the point.

The world is owed an explanation- and hiding facts simply exasperates suspicion.

The world is owed an explanation- and if there is no “lab leak” then it can be proven without a doubt.

Is there smoke? Most certainly.

Is there fire? Maybe, maybe not. But surely the evidence is there. And cooperation is step one.

Cheers.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#632

Post by fjh »

michaelmrose wrote: post #613
iammisc wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no source for these claims. Just like with Trump, people get angry and upset with what they think he said based on the impression from the media, not what was actually said. Just look at the 'fine people on both sides' comment that was taken ridiculously out of context. This same thing happened to Sarah Palin with the 'I can see Russia from my house' phrase, which she never said. It was part of a comedy sket…

Here is Sarah Palin actually making that claim on CBS. Not in those hilarious words but really and in fact. It's like 2 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg The fine people on both sides was truly as horrific as it was made out to be. They had a torchlight nazi parade where they chanted jews will not replace us and they murdered people. Here is a pic of people flying as they were hit by a car. ht…

The grandparent didn't say nothing bad happened at the protest, they said that Trump's comments were taken out of context, which is completely true. Read the thing in context (here: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trump...) and it's clear that he's not defending white supremacists or anything of that sort.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#633

Post by shaicoleman »

chimprich wrote: post #629
shaicoleman wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'll look carefully, you'll see that's a non peer-reviewed opinion piece. That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. Just to rebut the first thing random thing I saw: "An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is…

> That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over: > There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective There have been a vast number of junk studies produced during the pandemic and rolling out 50 of them means very little. How many of them are pre-registered RCTs? How many of them are in low-q…

> I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over:

If that opinion contains patently false information and assumptions (e.g. early in-vitro study needed a high dose, therefore that same dose must be required in clinical patients), then that opinion is not trustworthy, regardless of whether it's on the BMJ website or not.

See also here [1] under the "Big Science" heading, why the current system is broken.

1. https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#634

Post by throwaway0a5e »

throwaway210222 wrote: post #590
Animats wrote: post #417

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.

> In the intelligence community, people are taught to distinguish between data items from different sources Where on earth do you get this from? In additional to the yellow cake fiasco, remember the pressure US and British intelligence came under find kompromat on UN security council members to bully them into voting for the Iraq invasion. Complete and utter lap dogs.

>Where on earth do you get this from?

From local cops to the CIA comparing the same information from multiple sources is SOP for everyone who deals with unreliable information.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#635

Post by crispyambulance »

fartcannon wrote: post #464
Animats wrote: post #417

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.…

> A plugin that will identify text that resembles known PR and propaganda and links to the original source.

Certainly such a tool might be useful to someone analyzing disinformation campaigns, but it only goes so far.

If the intent with such plugins and other forms of human/AI moderation is merely identify the source of what looks like disinformation, you're going to disappointed to hear that those who are influenced by disinformation don't care what "the source" is. It's why meatheads on Fox News can blabber non-stop garbage and get the highest news media ratings in history.

Dealing with this problem with "plugins", at best, is entering an infinite game of wack-a-mole. It's fundamentally not a technological problem.

This kind of stuff has always existed, and yes, now it's hopped-up on internet speed and naive countermeasures now need AI to keep up. But it's still qualitatively the same thing as it was in the 1930's. It requires a long game to battle it involving leadership, an educated populace and a government that isn't grossly polarized and dysfunctional.

Sadly, I don't think we're up to the challenge at least in the USA.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#636

Post by throwaway0a5e »

dqpb wrote: post #403
neither_color wrote: post #34

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…

Is HN any better? I got censored and ridiculously rate limited today for trying to post a similar article.

>Is HN any better?

On topics that are so niche there are no discernible ideological battle lines it can be decent.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#637

Post by throwaway0a5e »

moralestapia wrote: post #531
premium-komodo wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many HN users seem confident they know the truth, and that they know which sources are credible, and are comfortable suppressing anything contrary to what they already think, often without explanation. I don't think HN is quite an echo chamber yet, but it's well on its way.

Lots of people who are extremely educated (i.e. vocational training) fail to grasp very simple concepts of arguing, debating and behave quite childish and immature in many other aspects of their life. I spent about 20 years in academia, among the most "highly intelligent and prepared people" in the world, yet know 14-15 year olds who behave in a much more honorable way.

See also: the stereotype that physicists think they know everything because they know physics

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#638

Post by codeflow2202 »

chimprich wrote: post #629
shaicoleman wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'll look carefully, you'll see that's a non peer-reviewed opinion piece. That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. Just to rebut the first thing random thing I saw: "An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is…

> That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over: > There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective There have been a vast number of junk studies produced during the pandemic and rolling out 50 of them means very little. How many of them are pre-registered RCTs? How many of them are in low-q…

To be fair the c19ivermectin site only states: Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. If you want a meta-analysis that picks for you the quality studies from that list that's also avilable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#639

Post by christophilus »

remarkEon wrote: post #292
asdff wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People stopped reading the source material, and started just parroting the talking points. It's even gotten to the point where people are even convinced the talking points are the source material.

My shit test for "is this article likely a bunch of FUD or just outright BS" is if they actually link to the source material. If they don't, I usually continue reading it but make a mental note that they're likely pushing some specific version of the event or facts in question.

It’s challenging to do this without being swayed— particularly if the writer is a good rhetorician. Listening to propaganda over and over again, even while knowing that it is propaganda, tends to influence your opinions. I don’t know what the solution to that is. But it does feel like reading the news requires a mental rigor that is both rare and exhausting.

Someone recommended that I supplement my news reading with newsprint from 20 years ago, just to get perspective on what matters and what doesn’t, and on how full of crap most of it is.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#640

Post by throw0101a »

jkhdigital wrote: post #273
throw0101a wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminder that Facebook and Twitter banned users for talking about the lab-leak theory. Can we define/refine the concept of "lab-leak theory" a bit? Because some of the stuff floating around a year ago was a bit unhinged from reality: > You’ve probably heard the rumor: The new coronavirus is a bioweapon. Some malicious country—perhaps the United States, maybe China, depending on who’s talking or tweeting—purposefull…

This is classic “nurse vs. feminist nurse” cognitive distortion. Whether the virus was developed as a bio weapon, or simply as a product of well-intentioned gain-of-function research, is irrelevant to the factual basis of whether or not it escaped from the lab. We don’t need to establish how and why it was created, only that it was, in order to assess the likelihood of lab release as a root cause of the pandemic.

> Whether the virus was developed as a bio weapon, or simply as a product of well-intentioned gain-of-function research, is irrelevant

I for one think it is very important to establish if it was the product of bioweapon program (or not).

Post reply on HN