Misinformation dilemma.

[ignoramus]

This is why democracy is the least worse governing system.
We could be in China posting this, and we'll all have a knock on the door by the ccp goons by now.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

On an issue like vaccines .....No 

[ignoramus]

^ pretty much.
As we all know, facts and evidence means nothing to people's biases.
We have no say in our beliefs. They are what they are.
There's a reason why the average iq is 100. because half the population is under!

[GUBU]

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.

What these people are doing isn't even going against mainstream science, they're going against reality itself.

Oh and on policing their lies, all humanity hating anti-vaxxers should be given full freedom, stick them on uninhabited islands and forget about them. Let them enjoy their hearts' wishes, for about four days.

[Neo-Scholastic]

^ pretty much.
As we all know, facts and evidence means nothing to people's biases.
We have no say in our beliefs. They are what they are.
There's a reason why the average iq is 100. because half the population is under!

With respect to COVID, facts and evidence were very slim given that it was a new virus, an experimental vaccine type, and the country of origin was hiding its data.

Initially, I was fully on board and lead the implemetation of workplace modifications for our 1500 person facilities. We increased the fresh air intake of our HVAC systems, set occupancy limits (using an MIT formula), introduced air filtration, etc. Etc. It was a major initiative but ultimately modeled after experience based on sars and Spanish flu. I am not saying it was misguided, just that everyone, including the most authoritative sources, were mostly guessing. And that makes sense, for a while, when facing a threatening unknown.

But then it became political, or maybe it was from the beginning, but the "abundance of caution" has not given way to open discussion. It it had, the useless mask mandates would have benn dropped long ago.

Now, me personally, I was one of tbe first to be vaccinated against COVID 19 and boosted. But doing so has spent the last of my trust in the major institutions.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Amazing we do a thread about misinformation and spew a whole paragraph loads worth after going on about being reasonable 

[Spongebob]

I'm still trying to understand how the virus "became political". At what point did this happen and what was what pushed it over the line? I'm serious here. I have friends who believe this but I'm too concerned with starting an argument to corner them.

[ignoramus]

I find that most, if not all antivaxxers cannot differentiate between the politics and the disease.
They hate the disease, or deny it, or its severity simply because of the punishing government response to it.

You know the funny thing now that Australia has all but given up on containing it.
No-one is going out anymore. Retail is dying. Now the government is trying to spark some confidence in the public to start going out again and supporting local business.

[brewer]

I'm still trying to understand how the virus "became political".  At what point did this happen and what was what pushed it over the line?  I'm serious here.  I have friends who believe this but I'm too concerned with starting an argument to corner them.

You're kidding right?

[arewethereyet]

I'm still trying to understand how the virus "became political".  At what point did this happen and what was what pushed it over the line?  I'm serious here.  I have friends who believe this but I'm too concerned with starting an argument to corner them.

Way, way back in the beginning...Trump didn't allow ships to dock in the US because the COVID cases would make his numbers look bad.

It's not a mystery how it got politicized.