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

781–790 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#781

Post by immibis »

agentgumshoe wrote: post #673
cletus wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situations aren't comparable because in your case (the former Yugoslavia) you're talking about state censorship and control of information by threat of criminal prosecution. The US specifically has protections against this via the First Amendment. Instead we have private actors choosing not to be in the misinformation business. Various hate groups and such have been deplatformed by Twitter, Facebook, etc. Those f…

You're missing the point. Who gets to determine what is 'misinformation?' I think you'll find if you look back a year or so it was the government representatives and 'MSM' defining it, not leading scientists (some of which have since been 'discredited' because they supposedly suddenly turned to nuttiness). And little seems said, but I can't help notice the quite communist behaviour to demand the state mandate 'choice…

Objective reality gets to determine.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#782

Post by immibis »

bananapear wrote: post #742
immibis wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lockdowns had no impact on mortality. This is literally impossible, because viruses cannot teleport through walls. Unless there is confusion between the government calling for lockdowns, and people actually doing lockdowns?

The virus travels on the air, and spread has even been attributed to foul air leaking from sewage systems back into people's homes. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202... Also food and other required resources are similarly unable to teleport through walls, so the people involved in growing, transporting, preparing and delivering them to your door can't do "lockdown" like the minority who are…

Seems extraordinarily unlikely. I mean, can you smell your neighbour's cooking through the sewage system? Same principle!

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#783

Post by immibis »

ses1984 wrote: post #733
immibis wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is completely absurd. "Lockdowns" is shorthand for "people not coming into contact with other people in a way that spreads the virus". Because the virus cannot teleport through walls, lockdowns necessarily prevent transmission.

The question isn’t whether lockdowns with compliance work, the question is how effective is lockdown as a policy. If you create a lockdown policy, what is the impact of that?

In that case it is important to differentiate between lockdown policies, and lockdowns.

Antivaxxers often bring up papers concluding that mask mandates don't work, as evidence that masks don't work.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#784

Post by Mountain_Skies »

Cyph0n wrote: post #355
goodluckchuck wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By distrust, do you mean “blindly believe SMEs to be wrong just because they’re an SME” or “fail to blindly believe what SMEs say?” If people don’t understand a complex subject, then I think they should neither endorse nor reject SMEs’ opinions on the matter. People don’t have to have a belief about everything. Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re not. Blind trust is dangerous.

More like "blindly believe SMEs to be wrong because I watched a few YouTube videos".

How do you know those with opinions different from yours based those opinions completely on a few YouTube videos?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#785

Post by 6510 »

swayvil wrote: post #360
judge2020 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, it'd be like omitting the "methodology" section of the paper. There's no way to verify or prove wrong a paper if you don't know how they reached their conclusions.

Remove description of methodology and science becomes mere dogma.

and dogma science!

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#786

Post by immibis »

mike_hearn wrote: post #730
immibis wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is completely absurd. "Lockdowns" is shorthand for "people not coming into contact with other people in a way that spreads the virus". Because the virus cannot teleport through walls, lockdowns necessarily prevent transmission.

This is the sort of mis-use of logic that has led to so many problems. "Lockdowns" is shorthand for "people not coming into contact with other people in a way that spreads the virus" It's shorthand for a set of government policies that were intended to reduce contact, not eliminate it, because "not coming into contact with other people" is impossible. People still have to go to shops, hospitals, care homes, live with…

you're exposed to the virus normally 10 times per week every week. With lockdowns that drops to 5 times a week.

In this scenario, lockdowns work fine, but are insufficient! Perhaps with stringent use of N95 masks during contactless food ration delivery it can be reduced to 0.05 times per week. Then the pandemic ends and we go back to normal.

Also, if you only go out half as often, that's not exactly a lockdown either. A lockdown is people not coming into contact with other people in a way that spreads the virus. It's not people still often coming into contact with other people in a way that spreads the virus but not as often as before.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#787

Post by immibis »

icare_1er wrote: post #768
immibis wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says he discovered a way to put mRNA into human cells. We don't even know that, really - we know he ran an experiment doing so. It does not say he knows anything about the things he talked about on JRE: hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, or anything about the specific mRNA being delivered to fight COVID (unless you are suggesting that ALL mRNA insertions kill people), or anything about immunity at all, or anything…

I have a proposal to make things easier: why don't you and your friends give us a list of people allowed to talk about ivermectine, or mRNA, or Israel/Palestine, so we can more easily put them all on one channel that will give us the Truth and make it easier to protect us from all of the other articles, podcasts, etc ? I've seen some regimes do that and it works much better.

Here is the list of things you are not allowed to talk about:

1. Things that are false, whose dissemination regardless creates significant harm to society.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#788

Post by immibis »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #763
immibis wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones who are ignoring "the science" to push agendas are the ones currently without power and control, who wish they had it. Since they cannot earn it honestly through correctness, they try violence.

I see lots of power hungry people doing it, and they have varying amounts of power and control, many have a lot of power and a lot of control

I guess people like Joe Rogan do have lots of power and control. But those are outliers.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#789

Post by Mountain_Skies »

immibis wrote: post #781
agentgumshoe wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. Who gets to determine what is 'misinformation?' I think you'll find if you look back a year or so it was the government representatives and 'MSM' defining it, not leading scientists (some of which have since been 'discredited' because they supposedly suddenly turned to nuttiness). And little seems said, but I can't help notice the quite communist behaviour to demand the state mandate 'choice…

Objective reality gets to determine.

What's the objective reality on the lab leak theory? Effectiveness of cloth masks? Has that objective reality changed? Has the perception of that objective reality changed? Where do you get your objective reality from and how is it infallible?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#790

Post by SamReidHughes »

zeven7 wrote: post #746
SamReidHughes wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Powhatan lived to 70, Opechancanough lived to 92 (when he was murdered), Massasoit lived to 80, Canonicus was 82.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier You should make sure you understand what outliers are. The fact that you can name people from outside modern times that lived a long time is meaningless to the discussion.

As if I don't understand what outliers are.

They weren't outliers. I simply looked up famous Indians because I remembered one had lived to a startlingly old age, and skipped those who got killed by other people. If their diet caused health problems, you wouldn't have all these folks living to a decent age. All the Indian leaders would have bene these young guys who died off at 45 from eating too much venison.

Post reply on HN