Live data from Hacker News

Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

royalsociety.org

901–910 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. Hmm. I wonder how we got there...[1] [1] https://i.imgflip.com/63b63m.jpg

Quoted post unavailable.

....and that is exactly why no one trusts institutional actors anymore.

> I think your comic is referencing the political "left" vs "right" divide, you are part of "the right"

That's a big assumption. I could very well be part of the left who simply doesn't share "the left"(tm)(c)pat. pending)'s current party line because I find it to be nonsensical.

> People who exhibit this pattern are usually stuck in a rut of pseudo-truth.

There it is. That arrogance right there. "You don't share my class interests, therefore you are wrong". That, in essence, is exactly why no one trusts institutional actors -- because people realize they've aligned themselves with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. There's no disguising it anymore. They will do or say whatever those who hold the purse-strings tell them to say.

> It doesn't help that a lot of institutions agree with the actual truth a lot of the time

Which truth is that? The one that said that masks helped halt the spread of the virus, or the one that said it didn't and we should stop hoarding them? Roll 2d6 and consult your Propaganda Master's Guide on page 666 to find the answer.

> People who exhibit this pattern often reflexively disbelieve whatever any authority says, just because they're an authority, i.e. Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

...or they've correctly identified them as class enemies who will do or say whatever it takes to defend their class interest such that you can't believe anything that comes out of their mouth. It honestly doesn't matter if they're right at that point because the lack of trust cannot be amended.

> The thing that makes it really insidious is the mentality they're right and everyone else is automatically wrong.

Indeed. Calling someone a part of 'the right' and saying they're from a side stuck in a 'rut of pseudo-truth' because they point out that institutional actors are biased to their own interest, have a history of lying, and this is why no one trusts them anymore, is quite insidious.

> I ask you: Hypothetically, if what you believed was not actually true, what would convince you of that?

Institutional actors abdicating their posts in favor of someone of proletarian class interest so proletarian ideals can be put to the test without interference.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#902
post #849

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…

Oh I understand the point completely. A quick look at your comment history says everything (eg [1][2]). You have, for whatever reason, fallen down the of misinformation and propaganda that turns you into an anti-vaxxer and you've lost any objectivity or any ability to reason about the information you receive the supports or contradicts your view. If it supports your view, it's correct. If it doesn't, it isn't. The re…

See that's the thing, it's so easy to just say 'oh an anti-vaxxer' with a smirk and not think more. But I have done a lot of research and informing myself over time and things very much don't add up. Yes the vaccines do have some efficacy and effect for the elderly, but beyond that the research doesn't support it, unless you just listen to the hand-picked 'experts' the media chooses.

The data doesn't lie. Were you aware Pfizer finished their phase 3 trial after 3 months partly because 97% of the control group got vaccinated? Is that good science?

Are you aware many countries count a covid death as any death within 30 days of a covid diagnosis?

Are you aware in the US that doctors and hospitals receive compensation specifically for recording a covid case but not for other illnesses?

Are you aware that in the UK, out of 170K+ deaths, less than 100 were under the age of 20, yet vaccines are pushed to all with a higher side effect profile in the young?

Are you aware that in Pfizer's presentation for approval of their vaccine for under 12's that they didn't even demonstrate a clinical outcome?

Did you see Bourla himself say two doses do nothing against Omicron, three 'a little,' and yet they're still being pushed/mandated?

And look at Ivermectin. The response has constantly been 'more research needed' yet no big investment, even though the investment in the vaccine was unprecedented. Why wouldn't masses of funds and research be put towards it if it looked promising (which a number of studies, though not all, showed).

I change my mind if the evidence and data are strong. I don't sent the vaccine does work to an extent for specific groups, but you have to work really hard to not see massive problems with things like mandates and vaccinating kids based on the data. Locking down seems to have worked best, but that's political suicide now so 'just get more jabs' that don't stop spread or hospitalisation is the go...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Failure of communication" is a generous way to put it. The leaked Collins and Fauci emails show there was a deliberate decision to trade truth for control of the narrative. [0] This isn't incompetence or messaging being too simple. This is a failure of philosophy: that of "noble lies". Much of our leaders behaviors can be explained through this lens. Masking, natural immunity, lab leak, etc. At every turn, the facts…

Fair enough, but I would consider a failure communication philosophy a subset of communication failure

Perhaps. I only see it as a "subset" in the sense of: many things have to go right for good communication to happen -- ethos being one of them.

But its still "upstream" from communication. Philosophy informs action.

Your original point is that our leaders need to get better at communicating nuanced issues. That's a non-starter if the people in charge see nuance as an obstacle and straight up adopt an anti-nuance attitude.

My point is, they're bad at communicating nuance in the way that a bulldozer is bad at building a house. It just wasn't their mission. And that didn't become obvious until after these emails were leaked.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#904
post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What to do when you have two very different opinions coming from experts: - Anthony "I am The Science" Fauci or - Dr Malone (mRNA inventor)? Who to believe? Difficult to say, but these days, sadly, the first (and prudent) thing to do is to follow the money . While credentials matter, the first thing I check when I read a paper/publication is who funded the work.

All claims I've seen that Malone is "the" inventor of mRNA vaccine technology trace back to Malone himself. He possibly has some real claim to be "an" inventor, among the top dozen or so contributors of early advances that ultimately enabled the present vaccines. It's also possible that the contribution he's claiming as his own was basically his supervisor's idea (Felgner's), and Malone is just the one who did the la…

What exactly is the "false mainstream view that can never get corrected"? I'm likely out of the loop to some extent, but WRT, e.g masks, that was retracted and corrected; vaccines prevent transmission/reception, that was retracted and corrected. What else am I missing, or is it simply that people don't like "flip-flopping", which is strange cause there wasn't massive outrage at the way "cigarettes don't give you cancer" was propagated, or Absestos, etc

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#905

Remember when the "science" claimed that low-fat, high carb diets were healthy? Doctors once said that smoking was 'safe'. Science is 'right' up until it's wrong.

Quoted post unavailable.

How come atheists always forget to capitalize proper nouns?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#906
post #596

Odd how there's no study on reducing the massive manipulation being done for the greater good. The pandemic has really shown how weak and sleazy all institutions are. Any while 'scientific misinformation' means there's at least a modicum of science in place, wait until you see what people are really sharing privately! The disaster that will come is well deserved to all governments and institutions. There used to be a…

Authorities don't seem to understand that their trust is earned. It's like they can't even conceive that it can be eroded. Lies and half truths are told so often and for so minor issues that it can't possibly make sense from a cost-benefit perspective, if behind the scenes it's indeed "noble lies" and "greater good", as some generous people seem to think. If you tell a noble lie every other day, nobody will trust you…

This hits the nail on the head.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#907

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

I'm biased - I'm a researcher at a big research institution and finished my PhD 15+ years ago. Seeing how the sausage is made shouldn't cause one to become less "pro-science". It should give people perspective that the scientific process is a process performed by humans, with all their flaws (ego, ambition, competition, etc). Furthermore, science is all about making hypotheses and seeing how they work out - with the…

If that's the case, this is not a process that should be guiding public policy.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#908
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I think we trust people to make decisions about complex subjects all the time when it comes to their personal lives. I think the problem is this, in a reasonable society we would say: here are the relevant facts, here's the supporting data, make up your own mind. In reality what our society now does is says "_you must accept conclusion X, and if you don't you're an idiot_" with absolutely no real justif…

> In reality what our society now does is says "_you must accept conclusion X, and if you don't you're an idiot_" with absolutely no real justification. I don’t agree with the “no real justification” part. But even if we set that aside, context matters! We are almost 2 years into a global pandemic with multiple vaccines widely deployed and extremely well-tested, yet a significant minority is still denying the vaccine…

When I say no real justification, I don't mean that a justification doesn't exist, I mean that it's rarely given in a coherent way.

I think a big problem with the vaccine messaging (from people and institutions) is that it ignores human psychology. To give maybe a silly example, lets say I was hosting an office party and I brought a soft serve ice cream machine. The value of ice cream speaks for itself, so I imagine I would be giving out a lot of ice cream. There are probably a few people that wouldn't want ice cream though. Maybe they're lactose intolerant, or on a diet, or they have tooth sensitivity. Lets say I start pressuring these people, mocking them and generally getting in their face about it. People would start to think something is up right? What if I then said "everyone must have ice cream, or you're fired", people would suddenly start wondering: why is this guy so insistent that I have ice cream? Is there something in the ice cream? Is this some weird Jonestown thing going down? I imagine a lot of people would refuse the ice cream on principle.

I feel like with the vaccine and the mask mandates "not getting sick from a horrible virus" should be able to sell itself. But people are now really distrustful, partially because the messaging has been so over the top forceful, often contradictory or misleading, and partially because the vaccine has been overhyped (remember when Biden said if you got the vaccine you wouldn't get sick? That's just demonstrably untrue.) And now people think that if they just double down on this it's going to help, but like in my ice cream example, it's just going to make people wonder what on earth is going on.

Unless you have some sort of real power over people, attempting to bully them into seeing your point of view just is not an effective way to convince anyone.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#909
post #886
post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t you have an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty in decision making? Doubt is always better than false certainty. Public figures lying during pandemic have only prompted more people to be distrustful of science and the official policy decisions.

Because then nothing would ever get done. We would debate endlessly whether declaring the war on Germany was a good idea, or whether going to the Moon is a stupid goal, etc. etc. There’s certainly no shortage of arguments against any decision. Once the decision is made, continuing to doubt it is often not helpful. I actually think this was one failure in our response to the pandemic. Take N95 masks or testing or what…

But people were debating about all these things, war on Germany was not declared for a very long time, war in Vietnam was abandoned not sure if consider that good or bad.

The initial stance on masks was to lie that they are useless so that people don't buy masks that were needed for doctors, so if CDC was to stay on message it would stay on that message not the one that masks are good.

Your proposed approach of a few people making decisions and the rest not even being allowed to debate, can not create trust, it can only create USSR or North Korea.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#910

From the article: 'The report defines scientific "misinformation" as content which is presented as fact but counter to, or refuted by, the scientific consensus - and includes concepts such as ‘disinformation’ which relates to the deliberate sharing of misinformation content.' They define misinformation in terms of a "scientific consensus". That alone seems problematic[0]. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…

Why? Saying that the strength of gravity is proportional to the distance between two objects is misinformation.

Did you read the article at the link I posted?
Post reply on HN