Misinformation dilemma.

[Brian37]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-mis...cicC5fhvJc

"Is it reasonable to outright ban information that is both harmful and wrong? Does freedom and democracy really require that massive platforms are given to utter nonsense?"

Institutions are still struggling with the challenge of dealing with deadly healthcare information. This challenge was not caused by social media, but certainly was exacerbated by it. And it also did not suddenly become relevant during the COVID pandemic, but was brought into sharper relief. What we are experiencing now is actually part of a much longer trend, and is essentially a conflict between freedom on the one hand and quality control for the purpose of public good on the other. A solution at either extreme seems unlikely, and perhaps there is no ideal solution.

It is the classic dilemma. A similar argument to the "how far can you tolerate intolerance" argument.

My question to you guys is:

Are we OK for governments and social media platforms to censor topics and posts and even written/printed articles which go against the mainstream scientific evidence?
If not, why not.

But then, how do authorities police against gatherings like this in Melbourne?
How can scientifically/medically uneducated police decide who is right or wrong?





I don't think censorship is the answer. How can you police against opinion?
I think from the moment we enter a free democratic world, the small print should read: "Caveat emptor" and leave it at that.

Yep, conspiracy crap. "I don't want to get a vaccine or wear a mask because I don't want my government experimenting on me like the Nazis.

They also confuse the word "isolated" when scientist use it, with the ability to spread. The sequences have been isolated, as in "identified". What this moron doesn't understand is that reducing "spread" depends on everyone doing their part for public safety.

[brewer]

An individuals personal freedom (to believe or act on a belief) stops at another persons nose. If someone wants to believe in nonsense OK, if they want spread the nonsense OK, if they want to enforce the nonsense upon others/society, not OK. That's not how freedom works.

With the current covid situation, if the antivax/antimask nonsense has a real world impact on society, which it does, then they can still believe can but be excluded from activities that may have a negative impact on society. Don't want to mask or vaccinate yourself then you may be eliminated from some activities that living that the society allows others, work, education, social interaction,............

If they truly believe that their belief is the only way, then they are free to create their own isolated society/life. They don't get to demand that others, the majority of 'sensible' society, comply with their belief.

[Spongebob]

It's their company so they can do what they want, but I am not much for censorship of misinformation because it doesn't much work. I see that a lot of youtubers get their videos falsely flagged because of it, or why I don't put my videos on YouTube when I want to share them here portraying people who are lying, so I use Facebook.

The other reason is that there is also accepted misinformation, like religion, so when religious people see that misinformation allowed, they think it is acceptable and not misinforming.

The main reason videos get flagged on Youtube is because Google is too lazy to do the evaluations so they just wrote crappy algorithms which flag all kinds of videos by mistake.  They also flag videos for breaking the rules when they clearly are not, such as using the word "Nazi" in a historical documentary about Nazism and claiming they are promoting hate speech.  It's just lazy, sloppy work and should be highly criticized.  But the fact that it's done poorly shouldn't mean that we don't do it.  Do it better!

Religion is a bastion of misinformation but because of its long history, it's going to get a pass.  That's just how it is.  But what about new cults that arise?  Those can be squelched and perhaps people can be stopped from falling victim to them.  Think about those people who died in the Heaven's Gate cult.  That was back in the 70's - 90's when there was no such thing as social media.  Imagine how many people they could snare now.  You don't have to imagine; just thing about how many Americans were convinced to join Islamic terrorist groups.  They were reached through social media.  There are predators out there who don't follow society's rules and we need some level of protection against them infecting the minds of the gullible.  Airhead is a good example.

[zebo-the-fat]

I want the freedom not to be infected by zero IQ nutter

[Ahriman]

It's their company so they can do what they want, but I am not much for censorship of misinformation because it doesn't much work. I see that a lot of youtubers get their videos falsely flagged because of it, or why I don't put my videos on YouTube when I want to share them here portraying people who are lying, so I use Facebook.

The other reason is that there is also accepted misinformation, like religion, so when religious people see that misinformation allowed, they think it is acceptable and not misinforming.

The main reason videos get flagged on Youtube is because Google is too lazy to do the evaluations so they just wrote crappy algorithms which flag all kinds of videos by mistake.  They also flag videos for breaking the rules when they clearly are not, such as using the word "Nazi" in a historical documentary about Nazism and claiming they are promoting hate speech.  It's just lazy, sloppy work and should be highly criticized.  But the fact that it's done poorly shouldn't mean that we don't do it.  Do it better!

Religion is a bastion of misinformation but because of its long history, it's going to get a pass.  That's just how it is.  But what about new cults that arise?  Those can be squelched and perhaps people can be stopped from falling victim to them.  Think about those people who died in the Heaven's Gate cult.  That was back in the 70's - 90's when there was no such thing as social media.  Imagine how many people they could snare now.  You don't have to imagine; just thing about how many Americans were convinced to join Islamic terrorist groups.  They were reached through social media.  There are predators out there who don't follow society's rules and we need some level of protection against them infecting the minds of the gullible.  Airhead is a good example.

Yeah, wouldn't want people to be stronger individuals on their own terms, better let the government take care of everything.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If everyone had equal access and understanding of any given issue would there some kind of consensus opinion? Perhaps, but I doubt it very much. Intelligent well-informed and well-meaning people can still reach different conclusions IMHO.

[brewer]

I have a firmly held belief that my personal freedom allows me to take other peoples possessions without their permission (this includes health).

Ahri, I now consider all of your possessions mine, I expect you to hand them over. There is no use arguing or trying to stop me, I don't consider that you have a 'firmly held belief'. Government/law/society has no say in the matter.

Perspective?

[Irreligious Atheist]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-mis...cicC5fhvJc

"Is it reasonable to outright ban information that is both harmful and wrong? Does freedom and democracy really require that massive platforms are given to utter nonsense?"

Institutions are still struggling with the challenge of dealing with deadly healthcare information. This challenge was not caused by social media, but certainly was exacerbated by it. And it also did not suddenly become relevant during the COVID pandemic, but was brought into sharper relief. What we are experiencing now is actually part of a much longer trend, and is essentially a conflict between freedom on the one hand and quality control for the purpose of public good on the other. A solution at either extreme seems unlikely, and perhaps there is no ideal solution.

It is the classic dilemma. A similar argument to the "how far can you tolerate intolerance" argument.

My question to you guys is:

Are we OK for governments and social media platforms to censor topics and posts and even written/printed articles which go against the mainstream scientific evidence?
If not, why not.

But then, how do authorities police against gatherings like this in Melbourne?
How can scientifically/medically uneducated police decide who is right or wrong?





I don't think censorship is the answer. How can you police against opinion?
I think from the moment we enter a free democratic world, the small print should read: "Caveat emptor" and leave it at that.

I appreciate your position on this. I think different information should be allowed because mass censorship of information only further sinks the trust in these public health agencies imo, and when people see that they are fighting against authoritarianism, which is true imo, some of them are just going to throw out all trust in government and science and start even distrusting the evidence from Nasa about the moon landings and pictures of the earth and these people that loose all trust in the mainstream, take things to the extreme and just go down this rabbit hole and can never get themselves out of it.

Many in the mainstream scientific community are losing trust right now because they are pushing for censorship of different ideas, and science is supposed to be about rigorous debate, not shutting the other side down, especially in an emerging situation like we have with Covid right now. Consensus in an emerging situation is not the same thing at all as consensus in hindsight years down the line. Scientific papers about covid going against the mainstream were literally accepted into scientific journals recently, but then disappeared because of pressure from the pro-censorship side of things. That paper clearly had all the business in the world being available and discussed as they had no problem accepting it at first, but then when the pressure campaign came in, the paper was disappeared, and other scientists were no longer allowed to see it and discuss it like science is all about.

The line from twitter and all of these other social media platforms was/is that you can't go against the WHO's information, because they are King. Well, in a developing situation, information changes, and as would be expected in any brand new thing, some information the WHO gave was later corrected by them as new information came in. The WHO admitted they were wrong on some things, as all scientists should do when new, better information becomes available. So, people on twitter and other platforms were censored/banned/whatever when they actually initially got certain things right and actually had a better idea of what was going on than the WHO did, but it just didn't match what the WHO was saying at the time. If we're just censoring people for going against the "official story", then would people have been censored in 2003 for questioning the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Will we ever learn from history?

[brewer]

If everyone had equal access and understanding of any given issue would there some kind of consensus opinion? Perhaps, but I doubt it very much. Intelligent well-informed and well-meaning people can still reach different conclusions IMHO.

We can reach different conclusions, but the issue is should I be forced to accept or abide by the differing 'peoples' conclusion, no matter how well meaning the person/people is/are. The consensus of a society (or their government or governing bodies) overrides the individual.

If you don't agree, give me all your stuff also.

[Ahriman]

I have a firmly held belief that my personal freedom allows me to take other peoples possessions without their permission (this includes health).

Ahri, I now consider all of your possessions mine, I expect you to hand them over. There is no use arguing or trying to stop me, I don't consider  that you have a 'firmly held belief'. Government/law/society has no say in the matter.

Perspective?

What's stopping me from defending myself?