Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-venezuela-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-freezes-venezuela-president-maduros-page-over-covid-19-misinformation-idUSKBN2BJ03Z
257 comments
> Can we just all agree that censorship is bad?
Not really; there are both many reasons why censorship is sometimes good, and why attempts to defend freedom of speech on the principle of democracy is not as persuasive as it would seem at first. Many powers can also be abused, and indeed have been in the past, from food and drug regulation to anti-terrorism measures. The fact that it can be abused is not in itself a great argument against the power.
There are also good reasons to bring religion into the discussion too, and whether it should be an exceptional part of freedom of speech. Some religious speech (in particular of parents to their impressionable children) should be second guessed as deserving of protection. Nevertheless, it's also a matter of degree. Most of the elements of religion are not so much misinformation as they are unknowables or taken on faith.
Not really; there are both many reasons why censorship is sometimes good, and why attempts to defend freedom of speech on the principle of democracy is not as persuasive as it would seem at first. Many powers can also be abused, and indeed have been in the past, from food and drug regulation to anti-terrorism measures. The fact that it can be abused is not in itself a great argument against the power.
There are also good reasons to bring religion into the discussion too, and whether it should be an exceptional part of freedom of speech. Some religious speech (in particular of parents to their impressionable children) should be second guessed as deserving of protection. Nevertheless, it's also a matter of degree. Most of the elements of religion are not so much misinformation as they are unknowables or taken on faith.
You say “we” but there’s slim chance that everyone reading this even on HN would agree with this value (and I say value because “censorship is wrong” is a normative assumption).
I agree that censorship of science is bad.
Giving powerful people a free megaphone for their opinions and anecdotal bs is also bad.
Nobody believes there is one right answer, but amplifying stupid is a recipe for disaster.
Giving powerful people a free megaphone for their opinions and anecdotal bs is also bad.
Nobody believes there is one right answer, but amplifying stupid is a recipe for disaster.
Science is merely a tool. It's conclusions still must be interpreted and translated to fit in to a human shaped system. There are almost as many interpretations of the conclusions of science as there are interpretations of religious texts.
Science shows us that eating too much leads to heart disease and shortens your lifespan. What conclusions do we draw from this? An extra 15 years of life is worth 90 years of a bland diet? Different people draw different conclusions.
My point is that science alone is not a comprehensive guide to how a life should be lived. It requires some extra interpretation.
In this Maduro COVID miracle cure situation it's obviously a ridiculous claim and could mislead thousands of people into taking a placebo pill and pulling their masks off and endangering the lives of other people.
Facebook truly believes that they are right in their conclusion that Maduro's interpretation of "science" will lead to people getting hurt. They have a moral obligation to stop it lest someone accuse them of having blood on their hands.
However, Maduro being in power has surely caused many thousands of people to die from political violence and starvation. What if stopping him from exposing himself as a fool and a liar has extended his position of power for another year? Psychology is also a science. The psychology behind why people would rally harder around a censored dictator. Which interpretation of science would kill more people?
The answers aren't always clear.
Science shows us that eating too much leads to heart disease and shortens your lifespan. What conclusions do we draw from this? An extra 15 years of life is worth 90 years of a bland diet? Different people draw different conclusions.
My point is that science alone is not a comprehensive guide to how a life should be lived. It requires some extra interpretation.
In this Maduro COVID miracle cure situation it's obviously a ridiculous claim and could mislead thousands of people into taking a placebo pill and pulling their masks off and endangering the lives of other people.
Facebook truly believes that they are right in their conclusion that Maduro's interpretation of "science" will lead to people getting hurt. They have a moral obligation to stop it lest someone accuse them of having blood on their hands.
However, Maduro being in power has surely caused many thousands of people to die from political violence and starvation. What if stopping him from exposing himself as a fool and a liar has extended his position of power for another year? Psychology is also a science. The psychology behind why people would rally harder around a censored dictator. Which interpretation of science would kill more people?
The answers aren't always clear.
It's not a megaphone. A megaphone forces people to hear whether they want to or not, and drowns out others trying to speak. A facebook page does neither.
I would argue it's not amplifying if everyone else has a megaphone.
Censoring Maduro, effectively a dictator, is absolutely the right thing to do here despite the effect being overblown (it’s a Facebook page after all). There is no reason to require a private platform to host any and all content, telling Facebook that once a page is created it must stay.
Forbidding Facebook from controlling its own platform is a slippery slope.
Forbidding Facebook from controlling its own platform is a slippery slope.
I didn't say FB should be forced to do anything. I am just saying that what they are doing is bad.
Ministries of Truth.
Not sure about this - I don’t think government leaders or anybody should be censored.
Better to have public health messages as part of the platform than to censor
It’s a fine line between hate and misinformation and dissent
(Clearly the content in question is wrong; but in other cases, WHO and others been proven incorrect - eg on masks and asymptotic transmission)
Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too...
Better to have public health messages as part of the platform than to censor
It’s a fine line between hate and misinformation and dissent
(Clearly the content in question is wrong; but in other cases, WHO and others been proven incorrect - eg on masks and asymptotic transmission)
Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too...
Obviously Maduro is a problematic despotic leader, but who are Facebook to be arbiters of thrush and falsehood?
We’ve gone down the path of good intentions that leads to hell.
Does this not interfere with self determination? Is there one true north now? Have Facebook found all truth?
This is getting ridiculous.
We’ve gone down the path of good intentions that leads to hell.
Does this not interfere with self determination? Is there one true north now? Have Facebook found all truth?
This is getting ridiculous.
For their own platform? Facebook is, obviously. How is this even a question?
It's not like a head of state doesn't have plenty of power to send messages through other means. Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms?
It's not like a head of state doesn't have plenty of power to send messages through other means. Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms?
>How is this even a question?
>Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms?
This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property", and that business owners used to ban black people from their private property.
So, judging by the history of human rights, it's a perfectly valid question
>Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms?
This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property", and that business owners used to ban black people from their private property.
So, judging by the history of human rights, it's a perfectly valid question
Except we did decide a private business can refuse service unless its specific discrimination of a protected class. If anything this analogy proves the opposite of your argument.
Are you implying we've reached the pinnacle of human rights, and can no longer progress or regress?
> This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property"
The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong.
This is pretty obvious, because nobody's mad about the small private actors doing the same kind of thing. 99.9999% of the companies or private groups around, nobody gives a shit that they get to decide to ban whoever they like. They're just mad at Facebook and Twitter because they're big. Whereas "small time slaveowners" are still disgusting criminals.
And I get that, these companies being more powerful, their decisions have wider knock-on effects. But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make. At most, you could mandate some kind of 'nutrition facts' policy, where policies must at least be up front and transparent.
The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong.
This is pretty obvious, because nobody's mad about the small private actors doing the same kind of thing. 99.9999% of the companies or private groups around, nobody gives a shit that they get to decide to ban whoever they like. They're just mad at Facebook and Twitter because they're big. Whereas "small time slaveowners" are still disgusting criminals.
And I get that, these companies being more powerful, their decisions have wider knock-on effects. But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make. At most, you could mandate some kind of 'nutrition facts' policy, where policies must at least be up front and transparent.
>But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make.
Agreed! Perhaps a publicly funded (not advertising funded) digital public square which protects lawful speech could be a potential solution?
>The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong.
What is and is not "inherently wrong" is subjective and always changing.
Anyone who pretends that they do not believe in things which will be considered "inherently wrong" 10, 50, or 100 years from now has a god complex and is deeply ignorant of human psychology and history.
Agreed! Perhaps a publicly funded (not advertising funded) digital public square which protects lawful speech could be a potential solution?
>The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong.
What is and is not "inherently wrong" is subjective and always changing.
Anyone who pretends that they do not believe in things which will be considered "inherently wrong" 10, 50, or 100 years from now has a god complex and is deeply ignorant of human psychology and history.
>For their own platform? Facebook
That is an American pow, that is not shared in Europe or China.
That is an American pow, that is not shared in Europe or China.
Facebook doing it of its own volition is one thing, and I'd argue they are within the right to do so. Government pressurizing Facebook to censor stuff is entirely other ballgame, which poses a bigger risk, and nobody seems to be paying attention to. (Most attention is given to the content being censored, not the actors behind the censorship).
I agree that this is an issue. The first amendment should protect private actors here from government influence over their own membership policies, other than certain narrow exceptions like protected classes.
Don't like that they ban too many left-wingers/right-wingers? Feel free to get mad about it, just don't get thinking that this is somehow illegal, or should be.
Don't like that they ban too many left-wingers/right-wingers? Feel free to get mad about it, just don't get thinking that this is somehow illegal, or should be.
I think people are mad about the perceived abuse of liability protections enjoyed by these private actors. In my opinion that is totally valid.
Facebook has 2.7 billion users or 34% of world population. Out of interest, I'm curious to know if, given that they are in effect, judge and jury on their own private platform, there is any % level of penetration at which you might change your view? It appears you'd set no limit at all.
> given that they are in effect, judge and jury on their own private platform
You say this like it's some weird, bizarre thing. Who else should be judge and jury by default on a private platform? Should there be some government committee any time a new social media company starts up?
In any case, to answer your question: if the issue is that they've become too powerful, and there's a reasonable case to make there, then I'd say the answer is to either break them up or support alternatives, not have the government barge in and micromanage how they run the particulars of their business. I don't think there's some obvious right answer for "how tightly should a social networking company restrict what people say", so the best possible answer from a societal level is to help choices flourish and let consumers choose.
Every platform has some 'censorship' -- even Parler banned porn, and got rid of left wing 'trolls'. The only real way around it is to not have a platform so much as a protocol, like email.
You say this like it's some weird, bizarre thing. Who else should be judge and jury by default on a private platform? Should there be some government committee any time a new social media company starts up?
In any case, to answer your question: if the issue is that they've become too powerful, and there's a reasonable case to make there, then I'd say the answer is to either break them up or support alternatives, not have the government barge in and micromanage how they run the particulars of their business. I don't think there's some obvious right answer for "how tightly should a social networking company restrict what people say", so the best possible answer from a societal level is to help choices flourish and let consumers choose.
Every platform has some 'censorship' -- even Parler banned porn, and got rid of left wing 'trolls'. The only real way around it is to not have a platform so much as a protocol, like email.
You can actually sue in court (in America) if a business kicks you out for protected reasons. So we don't need a governmental committee- we have the courts to arbitrate our cases for us.
And you think courts should be arbitrating every time some internet message board bans someone for posting porn or spam or a swastika? Because that's the implication of what you're saying here: let's let courts handle it.
Is this a serious suggestion? The courts are already overwhelmed, packed full of cases. And you want to throw potentially millions of minor cases where someone's mad about getting banned for flaming some other user onto their docket?
Is this a serious suggestion? The courts are already overwhelmed, packed full of cases. And you want to throw potentially millions of minor cases where someone's mad about getting banned for flaming some other user onto their docket?
Politicians aren't a protected class under US discrimination laws. A politician banned from Facebook would generally have no legal grounds to sue.
> private platform
From where does the idea of “private” come? Is it to distinguish its controllers from that which is government controlled?
From where does the idea of “private” come? Is it to distinguish its controllers from that which is government controlled?
That's the normal use of 'private' in this context, yes.
You can't just shoehorn words like 'obviously' and 'despotic' into your opening sentence then move onto attacking a platform for interference. I would suggest reading into the history of who installed and backed Juan Guido and for what reason. Facebooks 'narrative management' of this issue is just another aspect of that.
There was never good intentions here, they just started at the most palatable points and will keep cranking it up as they can.
You have it backwards. We should be worried about being forced to broadcast political messages we think are lies.
The real problem is that Facebook is in a position of such power and market control that moderation feels like censorship.
The real problem is that Facebook is in a position of such power and market control that moderation feels like censorship.
True! We need to demand accountability from platforms for amplifying messages without transparent traceability of information.
WHO statement on masks was misleading but I didn't see it as wrong (only wrong in the sense that they should focus on people's perception of their statements). They said that there was no evidence that masks help. Which was true at the time. They paired that statement with suggestions use a variety of prevention methods.
The statement from Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove that symptomatic patients being "very rare" was definitely wrong. But she back tracked the next day and said it only possible they are rare and was aware of the 40% models which have now come out to be much closer to the truth.
The statement from Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove that symptomatic patients being "very rare" was definitely wrong. But she back tracked the next day and said it only possible they are rare and was aware of the 40% models which have now come out to be much closer to the truth.
This is like your wife coming home and shout "there is no evidence that I cheated on you today". It's the truth, but wtf?
WHO has been extremely incompetent in communicating with public. Their tweets were shockingly bad and misleading.
WHO has been extremely incompetent in communicating with public. Their tweets were shockingly bad and misleading.
Strong disagree, at this point people have choosen sides and any attempt to influence people one way or the other will look either pathetic, at an absolute best, or hamfisted if you don't roll a natural 20.
And you really don't want more hamfisted attempts to educate people to your way of seeing the world unless you also want to repeat january 6th.
And you really don't want more hamfisted attempts to educate people to your way of seeing the world unless you also want to repeat january 6th.
Well then you can pay for some servers for people to post text and leave up the text that you think is reasonable.
Like Parler?
We have a mechanism for this. It’s defining protected classes. I don’t see an argument for putting Maduro’s speech into a protected class.
[deleted]
There is a big difference between OMS and populist leaders like Maduro/Bolsonaro/Trump.
What OMS said about masks and asymptomatic cases were the best we known about the pandemic at the current time (we still didn't have many studies on how the virus propagated). Once it became clear that masks helps and asymptomatic cases are super spreaders, OMS changed the tone quickly.
Populist leaders say things about remedies that study after study shown that there is no efficacy and they never change their tone because it would mean they're wrong. Instead, they simple jump for the next "miracle" solution.
What OMS said about masks and asymptomatic cases were the best we known about the pandemic at the current time (we still didn't have many studies on how the virus propagated). Once it became clear that masks helps and asymptomatic cases are super spreaders, OMS changed the tone quickly.
Populist leaders say things about remedies that study after study shown that there is no efficacy and they never change their tone because it would mean they're wrong. Instead, they simple jump for the next "miracle" solution.
I'm guessing most people here will have no idea what you mean by OMS - the English name is WHO (World Health Organization).
Yeah, thanks for the correction.
Also, context matters. OMS avoided recommending masks at the start of the pandemic since no study showed the efficacy of it, and there was no mass production of masks yet. So recommending it for general population would only generate shortage of masks for those who needed (frontline medics and nurses treating the cases). So this is why they're so against it.
> and there was no mass production of masks yet
But that’s not what they said. Fauci said “healthy people do not need to wear masks.” So he either lied then or is lying now. The reason for the lie is irrelevant. If healthy people should wear masks, the lack of production capability doesn’t change the fact.
If masks work and Fauci knew they worked, then his statement that healthy people don’t need masks was scientific fraud.
His exact words: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false.
Did he lie in order to protect mask supplies? Did some new groundbreaking study come out during the next few months? Of course not. So why would a rational person trust anything coming from Fauci given that we don’t know if it’s the truth, or just some manipulative statement based on whatever the political need happens to be at the time? To be even more cynical, ask oneself why certain older mask-related research papers have been censored?
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-...
But that’s not what they said. Fauci said “healthy people do not need to wear masks.” So he either lied then or is lying now. The reason for the lie is irrelevant. If healthy people should wear masks, the lack of production capability doesn’t change the fact.
If masks work and Fauci knew they worked, then his statement that healthy people don’t need masks was scientific fraud.
His exact words: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false.
Did he lie in order to protect mask supplies? Did some new groundbreaking study come out during the next few months? Of course not. So why would a rational person trust anything coming from Fauci given that we don’t know if it’s the truth, or just some manipulative statement based on whatever the political need happens to be at the time? To be even more cynical, ask oneself why certain older mask-related research papers have been censored?
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-...
The fact that he said "people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face" is exactly what I said about context: we still used to think that using alcohol and disinfecting surfaces are more effective than avoiding direct contact (at least for the general public). We now know that this isn't the truth, disinfecting surfaces are barely recommended nowadays since we know that the virus is airbone so masks and social distancing are the recommendation.
> That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false.
You’re actually missing the correct option which is that scientific consensus has shifted on this issue. Science is a process for the truth and conclusions can change with more evidence.
You’re actually missing the correct option which is that scientific consensus has shifted on this issue. Science is a process for the truth and conclusions can change with more evidence.
People keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. The consensus of public health officials changed for sure, but I haven't seen any evidence that the science changed at all
Science has been changing on this as the research becomes more nuanced for the current pandemic
For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
> So he either lied then or is lying now.
There’s also the option that he was wrong and learned/was educated. A lot of scientific progress works like that. “He lied” implies intention.
There’s also the option that he was wrong and learned/was educated. A lot of scientific progress works like that. “He lied” implies intention.
So how many scientific studies about mask efficacy were completed to change the scientific consensus during those two months when we had a mask shortage and were being told that masks only protect doctors?
Sorry, but when you are the chief advisor in a national crisis you don't get to learn on the job.
I don’t consider that a reasonable stance. New things happen all of the time, all people need to learn on the job. Scientific consensus at the beginning of the COVID pandemic was limited, transmission vectors largely unknown. There must be room for unknowns even for top advisors.
I admit it is not a reasonable stand, it comes from a deep level of fustration with how slowly the politicians are rolling things out and with how confident they sound when they are not doing anything.
> "His exact words: ...."
what fauci said was true (given tolerance for the natural ambiguity inherent in speech). in most cases, masks have been, and continue to be, primarily a palliative and signaling device, not a mitigation. for healthcare workers, it's actually an augmentative mitigation used with other imperfect mitigations in controlled circumstances to get the best possible outcomes from their use. masks are poorer mitigations in most general circumstances in comparison to the easier alternative that is (context-specific) distancing.
at various points, he's buckled to the prevailing political winds to keep his job, but that particular statement was a moment of lucidity and frankness. it threatened the dominant mediopolitical narrative, so he eventually backed off.
what fauci said was true (given tolerance for the natural ambiguity inherent in speech). in most cases, masks have been, and continue to be, primarily a palliative and signaling device, not a mitigation. for healthcare workers, it's actually an augmentative mitigation used with other imperfect mitigations in controlled circumstances to get the best possible outcomes from their use. masks are poorer mitigations in most general circumstances in comparison to the easier alternative that is (context-specific) distancing.
at various points, he's buckled to the prevailing political winds to keep his job, but that particular statement was a moment of lucidity and frankness. it threatened the dominant mediopolitical narrative, so he eventually backed off.
Another problem is that something like this can function as "evidence" for the claim. There are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. It's similar to the Streisand Effect or "Banned in Boston" but for belief rather than attention.
It seems like the better solution is to have an outpouring of discussion around how and why the claim is wrong. Let others ridicule the statements, rather than shutting down discussion. You'll never convince everyone, but at least you'd avoid the validation-by-censorship effect.
I could be wrong on this though. I don't really have any evidence or data that would show doing it one way is better than the other. I suppose I simply prefer open discussion.
It seems like the better solution is to have an outpouring of discussion around how and why the claim is wrong. Let others ridicule the statements, rather than shutting down discussion. You'll never convince everyone, but at least you'd avoid the validation-by-censorship effect.
I could be wrong on this though. I don't really have any evidence or data that would show doing it one way is better than the other. I suppose I simply prefer open discussion.
One issue is that it’s asymmetrical. Made up statements have more resonance and shocking value than well thought rebuffs or ridicule.
If you accuse your opponent of eating babies at breakfast, other parties will have a hard time to find something as punchy, and some minority of people will swallow your statement. Throw around enough of these and you’ll have a large base covered, with your opponents left scrambling for boring or after the fact retorts that won’t have the same reach.
If you accuse your opponent of eating babies at breakfast, other parties will have a hard time to find something as punchy, and some minority of people will swallow your statement. Throw around enough of these and you’ll have a large base covered, with your opponents left scrambling for boring or after the fact retorts that won’t have the same reach.
And that is why you, yourself, believe lots of wrong things like this, right?
I think that yes, I am effectively exposed to random baseless lies, and only a few of the voices crying foul will ever reach my eyes.
For instance I read a headline about future rising petrol prices due to the stuck Evergreen boat, and honestly I have no idea how true it is, don’t care enough to go down the rabbit hole, but still remembered it as an information, and might subconsciously be influenced by it on some decisions.
This is less likely to happen on fields I have decent interest or expertise in, but that only represents a tiny fragment of the information we consume everyday.
For instance I read a headline about future rising petrol prices due to the stuck Evergreen boat, and honestly I have no idea how true it is, don’t care enough to go down the rabbit hole, but still remembered it as an information, and might subconsciously be influenced by it on some decisions.
This is less likely to happen on fields I have decent interest or expertise in, but that only represents a tiny fragment of the information we consume everyday.
You would only have an outpouring of discussion as to why the claim is wrong if you are 100% certain the claim is wrong.
Last spring the CDC and the WHO were consistently wrong on masks, on asymmetric spread, etc on just about everything.
Maybe the experts themselves don't even trust what is supposedly the truth anymore.
Last spring the CDC and the WHO were consistently wrong on masks, on asymmetric spread, etc on just about everything.
Maybe the experts themselves don't even trust what is supposedly the truth anymore.
[deleted]
Thing is, any substantiative discussion will be way too complex for most people who could fall to these conspiracy theories, to understand, and they will arrive to a conclusion like "these Jews are trying to look too smart and bullshit us".
Sadly, this asymmetrical warfare from authoritarian nations hits the right point: it forces us to either let misinformation flow and people become manipulated by it, or to revert to authoritarian measures by gradually chipping away freedom of speech.
Sadly, this asymmetrical warfare from authoritarian nations hits the right point: it forces us to either let misinformation flow and people become manipulated by it, or to revert to authoritarian measures by gradually chipping away freedom of speech.
or increase transparency and demand accountability from platforms amplifying messages without transparent traceability of information.
...which is the exact opposite of what these platforms, as businesses, were designed to do: maximally amplify and disperse the most "clickable" information - which is the one understandable to everyone (dumb) and appealing to people's instincts (authoritarian, because we are herd animals).
given the power these platforms have, i highly doubt this attempt to regulate their business in a clearly negative way to them, can be successful. they are so powerful, even CCP is afraid of them, starting a crackdown on social media in China.
given the power these platforms have, i highly doubt this attempt to regulate their business in a clearly negative way to them, can be successful. they are so powerful, even CCP is afraid of them, starting a crackdown on social media in China.
> There are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. It's similar to the Streisand Effect or "Banned in Boston" but for belief rather than attention.
Similarly, there are large groups of people that believe there are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. The degree to which the respective beliefs of these two groups of people are actually correct, is unknown.
I suspect that the group of people that believe this is considerably smaller than the other two groups, at least in Western cultures.
I believe this phenomenon is (at least in part) what Hindus refer to as Maya.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp
Similarly, there are large groups of people that believe there are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. The degree to which the respective beliefs of these two groups of people are actually correct, is unknown.
I suspect that the group of people that believe this is considerably smaller than the other two groups, at least in Western cultures.
I believe this phenomenon is (at least in part) what Hindus refer to as Maya.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp
> It’s a fine line between hate and misinformation and dissent
"Hate" is a pretty Orwellian[1] word in this context, with a meaning pretty far from its usage a couple of decades ago.
Most usage I've seen has a distictively political bend.
E.g. "X are stupid and science proves it!" is not hate when X is "conservatives" but is when X is "muslims".
[1] see the section on meaningless words: https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
> Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too
If we want less echo chambers we'd need to stop censoring and banning those who disagree with us, otherwise they go elsewhere, encountering those similarly ostracized and form a natural echo chamber.
"Hate" is a pretty Orwellian[1] word in this context, with a meaning pretty far from its usage a couple of decades ago.
Most usage I've seen has a distictively political bend.
E.g. "X are stupid and science proves it!" is not hate when X is "conservatives" but is when X is "muslims".
[1] see the section on meaningless words: https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
> Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too
If we want less echo chambers we'd need to stop censoring and banning those who disagree with us, otherwise they go elsewhere, encountering those similarly ostracized and form a natural echo chamber.
I don't think anyone claims that "X is stupid" is hate, regardless of how broad or nonsensical X is.
X should die, or X are vile subhumans stealing our jobs, or we should rape X, or X are raping our dogs is hate.
X should die, or X are vile subhumans stealing our jobs, or we should rape X, or X are raping our dogs is hate.
Do remember that something like 'fossil fuels are destroying the environment' would be called 'hate speech' if power shifted a bit. 'Hate' is an emotive term used to bypass peoples thinking so that criticism of certain things can be disposed of by emotion rather than evidence. People bringing up evidence of malfeasance could be called 'hate filled' people, have what they say aggressively censored, so that other people only hear these are 'hate filled' people and what they say be buried so that inconvenient information doesn't come out.
There's an expression in my native language which, directly translated, is something along these lines:
"If my grandma had a rotor, she'd be a helicopter". I think it perfectly encapsulates your "slippery slope" argument, that if today we accept that saying you want to rape someone on Twitter is hate that needs to be stopped, tomorrow saying that processed foods are bad will be hate as well. Do you even realise how stupid your argument sounds? We're not talking about criticism. Were Nazis "criticizing" Jews? Do racists "criticize" other "races"? No, they hate them, and there is a pretty heavy difference between the two.
"If my grandma had a rotor, she'd be a helicopter". I think it perfectly encapsulates your "slippery slope" argument, that if today we accept that saying you want to rape someone on Twitter is hate that needs to be stopped, tomorrow saying that processed foods are bad will be hate as well. Do you even realise how stupid your argument sounds? We're not talking about criticism. Were Nazis "criticizing" Jews? Do racists "criticize" other "races"? No, they hate them, and there is a pretty heavy difference between the two.
> Do racists "criticize" other "races"?
The word "racist" seems to have a thousand subtly (and not so subtly) different meanings depending on who is using it. I think this is a good example of the phenomena.
Do you think it impossible that someone could believe that Chinese people are more intelligent than Nigerians due to genetics without hating them? Or do you just think said person would not necessarily be racist?
The word "racist" seems to have a thousand subtly (and not so subtly) different meanings depending on who is using it. I think this is a good example of the phenomena.
Do you think it impossible that someone could believe that Chinese people are more intelligent than Nigerians due to genetics without hating them? Or do you just think said person would not necessarily be racist?
Yes, another way to discredit someone with a valid concern is use name calling as the basis of their argument, just like what the parent post does here. School yard bullies used named calling to socially destroy the reputation of their victims and isolate them. Adults use the same name calling to do the same thing, they just use different words.
I have definitely seen "Muslims are stupid" be called hate speech.
Though you might have different standards... Would you say "So called transwomen are not women!" is hate speech?
Though you might have different standards... Would you say "So called transwomen are not women!" is hate speech?
[deleted]
You don’t really need to worry about drawing the line between facts and lies just because you remove the 10% most blatant disinformation. It doesn’t make Facebook the final arbiter of truth.
There are things that are controversial or debated and Facebook and others stay away from that.
Advocating injecting bleach or eating albinos to cure Covid is one thing while arguing the amount of asymptotic transmission is another thing entirely.
There are things that are controversial or debated and Facebook and others stay away from that.
Advocating injecting bleach or eating albinos to cure Covid is one thing while arguing the amount of asymptotic transmission is another thing entirely.
Does Facebook ban controversial statements such as “children should be given hormone blocking therapy if they request it, regardless of the wishes of their parents, even if it sterilizes them” or “transgender women should be allowed to go to/volunteer at battered women’s shelters”. Espousing the opposing viewpoint is a fast track to getting banned from Twitter/Facebook or wherever else.
Note I’m not making a judgement about these statements, merely using them as examples of things that absolutely won’t get you kicked off of Facebook for advocating.
Note I’m not making a judgement about these statements, merely using them as examples of things that absolutely won’t get you kicked off of Facebook for advocating.
This is first time I see someone worry about trans in battered women shelter. It just sounds like one of these made up issues that actual domestic violence activists dont seem to care about.
Battered women shelters also dont always have exclusively female staff. They do lean more female afaik, but penis won't prevent you to work as lawyer, psychologist, security etc.
What that worry shows mostly is that whoever is creating panic about this one was never interested in domestic violence - nor even curious about it.
Battered women shelters also dont always have exclusively female staff. They do lean more female afaik, but penis won't prevent you to work as lawyer, psychologist, security etc.
What that worry shows mostly is that whoever is creating panic about this one was never interested in domestic violence - nor even curious about it.
Is it? Give me an example of such a thing happening.
That will not happen, it’s not about enforcing morality, it’s about strengthening an ideology by erasing competing messages.
Agree, but Facebook has also removed things that are not "10% most blatant disinformation".
Okay — but in practice, channels on YouTube and Facebook merely mentioning COVID have to resort to euphemisms due to the extreme censorship.
So your claim they “stay away from” controversial or genuinely disputed topics is plain wrong: they censor those topics heavily on FB and YT to shape narratives — from COVID to Amber Heard beating her spouse.
Your idealized “just a little” censorship has already been exceeded — showing why it’s impractical as a political idea: it’s inherently unstable.
So your claim they “stay away from” controversial or genuinely disputed topics is plain wrong: they censor those topics heavily on FB and YT to shape narratives — from COVID to Amber Heard beating her spouse.
Your idealized “just a little” censorship has already been exceeded — showing why it’s impractical as a political idea: it’s inherently unstable.
Then they can spout whatever they want through their official channels. Facebook doesn't need to and isn't obligated to host their content.
In this case, Facebook can do what they please. Any uproar should be directed at the government which can go about using official channels as they please (press conferences, news releases, official government web pages)
In this case, Facebook can do what they please. Any uproar should be directed at the government which can go about using official channels as they please (press conferences, news releases, official government web pages)
Wait, Trump promoting chloroquine as a miracle cure and recommending bleach injections were okay, but Maduro doing the same can get him banned?
> recommending bleach injections
This is a mischaracterization.
This is a mischaracterization.
Sure, whatever you say. Here's the quote since apparently we've all forgotten:
>"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"
>"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."
>"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"
>"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."
Cedars-Sinai Hospital is studying a device that shines ultraviolet light inside lungs as a potential COVID-19 treatment.
https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/cedars-sinai-statement...
https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/cedars-sinai-statement...
UV light is a disinfectant and experimental treatments have proposed inserting a UV light into the lungs via mouth, or yes, literally injecting it into veins. Whether that's a good idea is another question.
You know what's missing from that quote? Trump recommending injecting bleach.
Though I thank you for getting the full quote, it raises the level of discourse. My excuse for not doing so is I was in a rush.
Though I thank you for getting the full quote, it raises the level of discourse. My excuse for not doing so is I was in a rush.
Trump spitballed about injecting disinfectants into people's lungs. He didn't say that individual people should do it, but he did say that doctors should test it out.
> And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds - it sounds interesting to me. So we'll see.
The specific disinfectants Trump was talking about were bleach and isopropyl alcohol. Trump's comments came right after a presentation by the undersecretary for Homeland Security about using these specific disinfectants to clean surfaces. Trump then genuinely appeared to think it might be a good idea to try these disinfectants out inside the human body. Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves whether Trump was being sarcastic, as he later claimed - I think it's obvious that he was completely serious.
* C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coron...
> And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds - it sounds interesting to me. So we'll see.
The specific disinfectants Trump was talking about were bleach and isopropyl alcohol. Trump's comments came right after a presentation by the undersecretary for Homeland Security about using these specific disinfectants to clean surfaces. Trump then genuinely appeared to think it might be a good idea to try these disinfectants out inside the human body. Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves whether Trump was being sarcastic, as he later claimed - I think it's obvious that he was completely serious.
* C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coron...
More to the point, everyone is ignoring this part:
> And is there a way we can do something like that
Trump isn't a scientist, he had a vague understanding and was asking others if this made any sense.
> And is there a way we can do something like that
Trump isn't a scientist, he had a vague understanding and was asking others if this made any sense.
Trump had just gotten done watching a presentation on how surfaces could be disinfected with chemicals that the average person knows to be extremely toxic (such as bleach). His takeaway was that maybe doctors should try injecting those extremely toxic chemicals into patients. I was amazed that the president of the United States thought this might possibly be a good idea. But let's pretend, for a moment, that it was actually a reasonable suggestion: why was the president even spitballing possible CoVID-19 treatments on live television? The whole spectacle was just absurd, and I think the White House recognized that, because this was the last press briefing the task force gave for months, and when they started up again, Trump was not present.
> He didn't say that individual people should do it, but he did say that doctors should test it out.
Only, people regularly think that they're smarter than doctors, and will self-medicate based on suggestions of somebody they trust. We saw people die because Trump boosted hydroxychloroquine -- he should have known at that point in time that people would follow his suggestion. And guess what? Thousands of people followed his advice on disinfectant/bleach.
https://time.com/5835244/accidental-poisonings-trump/
Only, people regularly think that they're smarter than doctors, and will self-medicate based on suggestions of somebody they trust. We saw people die because Trump boosted hydroxychloroquine -- he should have known at that point in time that people would follow his suggestion. And guess what? Thousands of people followed his advice on disinfectant/bleach.
https://time.com/5835244/accidental-poisonings-trump/
So as the commenter said, a mischaracterization.
A slight mischaracterization (doctors should do it, instead of people should do it themselves), and the original does not make Trump look any better.
Edit: Looking again, OP did not misrepresent Trump's comment at all. Trump did clearly recommend that doctors try injecting disinfectants (including bleach) into patients.
Edit: Looking again, OP did not misrepresent Trump's comment at all. Trump did clearly recommend that doctors try injecting disinfectants (including bleach) into patients.
I think it's important to differentiate saying X should be investigated as a treatment and X is a viable treatment.
When I hear "Trump recommending bleach injections" what I, and I think most people, understand from it is Trump recommending everyday people inject themselves with bleach as a cure for covid, not Trump saying doctors should investigate whether injecting bleach would cure covid. And the former is clearly not what Trump was communicating
When I hear "Trump recommending bleach injections" what I, and I think most people, understand from it is Trump recommending everyday people inject themselves with bleach as a cure for covid, not Trump saying doctors should investigate whether injecting bleach would cure covid. And the former is clearly not what Trump was communicating
How does anyone read what he actually said and not instantly think "moron".
I can (and did) also think that, but that's not relevant here.
This was during the peak of the first wave, in mid-April 2020. The president was up on stage improvising about how injecting patients with bleach or isopropyl alcohol might be a good treatment. I think most people were just shocked that a man who would even consider that as an idea had somehow become president of the most powerful country on Earth.
That's what I find most incredible about this thread and the confidence of the person denying something Trump said on the record. It hasn't even been a year and we're already forgetting the dumpster fire that was the original response to COVID.
"alternative facts"
As someone said, we're living in the post-truth era.
As someone said, we're living in the post-truth era.
Who denied anything Trumo said on record?
Trump is so incoherent and self-contradictory that any characterization is necessarily a mischaracterization. He's "not even wrong" in human form.
Everyone's fighting the last war.
They knew that wasn't OK, but were unwilling to do anything about it, and fear no reprisals from Maduro.
They knew that wasn't OK, but were unwilling to do anything about it, and fear no reprisals from Maduro.
Facebook is a private platform, so they should be able to censor whatever they want as long as it is not discriminatory against protected characteristics.
Well, this was once true of, say, television networks, telephone companies, electricity providers. But, they had too much power (mostly due to network effects), and so they were made into a special kind of private company, called a "utility". They still got to make a profit, but their actions were controlled by an elaborate web of rules and regulations, which were sure not perfect, but they were better than letting Thomas Edison decide if you could have electricity or Alexander Graham Bell decide if the contents of your telephone call were allowed or not.
Good god am I fucking sick and tired of the 'they're a private platform' argument
What is a solution? Facebook is a private company, so they can do business as they please within the confines of applicable laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations say they can censor as they please on their platform. Should we enact laws forcing private platforms to give everyone a voice?
Perhaps. It's definitely a conversation worth having, given the advancements in public speech through social media. There is no reason to believe that 200-year-old laws should be the end of the conversation.
What if the law said that operator of a platform cannot delete user content, as long as it does not break the law and shouldn't artificially limit its exposure? In the event that the platform runs out of space they should be allowed to charge people reasonable amount for the space.
I would not use any platform that doesn't delete viagra spam or work from home spam or any of the other things we recognize are awful (say, someone spamming pages of all-caps AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA or Ż̵̧̦͈͕̼̜̫̦̟͈͎̆̈͒̀͆̉a̶̩̺͊̔͑́͆̕ļ̴̨͇̲͈͓̥̝̠̜̘̠̹̫̀̋͛̄g̸̹͇̫̗̼̺̰͍̻̦̯̹͆̆̈́̂͜͜ǒ̶̧̪̹͖͖̮̻̹̻̮̦͐́̌̐̀͐̃̒̓̏͝ ̷̠̯̹̣͖͍̩̦̪́̀̾ͅt̵̼͈͉͖̯̫̪̟͔͛͌̐̿̎́͌̇ͅe̶̫͓̖̲͍̞̞͈̎̔̿͐x̴̛̠̺̮̼̏͒̀̒̎t̸̮̼͔͖̹͙̦͚͙̣̜̍͋̈́͌). I regard a platform that won't remove this stuff as bad, user-hostile, and not worth using. In fact, I would think pretty poorly of Hacker News if moderators didn't want to remove what I've already posted because frankly the above text is annoying and detracts from the site.
I think any law that requires that platforms allow the signal to noise ratio to go through shit via spam (and in your specific law, even sets a minimum price to be permitted to spam) would be a bad one.
If you allow platforms to remove posts based on content, as I think you should, then we're back to having a debate about which particular types of content should be protected by law, or else which particular types of content a platform ought remove (irrespective of whether they are compelled to or not). You might disagree with me about which types of content those would be, but supposing we are in this type of world, then it is possible that the process of adjudicating which types of content might be removed could ultimately arrive at an end-point where fraudulent health claims (not so far removed from viagra spam!) are one of those types of content.
Also, as relates Hacker News, it's hard to imagine a world where it is illegal for a site owner to remove content a user posted, but it is legal for peer users, using a voting algorithm, to do so (by virtue of downvoting posts until they are dead or hidden). Would this lead to, for instance, wanting to impose criminal sanction on sockpuppet accounts, since we feel using multiple accounts to downvote is tantamount to interference that would be illegal if done by a moderator? This strikes me as a bit much.
I think any law that requires that platforms allow the signal to noise ratio to go through shit via spam (and in your specific law, even sets a minimum price to be permitted to spam) would be a bad one.
If you allow platforms to remove posts based on content, as I think you should, then we're back to having a debate about which particular types of content should be protected by law, or else which particular types of content a platform ought remove (irrespective of whether they are compelled to or not). You might disagree with me about which types of content those would be, but supposing we are in this type of world, then it is possible that the process of adjudicating which types of content might be removed could ultimately arrive at an end-point where fraudulent health claims (not so far removed from viagra spam!) are one of those types of content.
Also, as relates Hacker News, it's hard to imagine a world where it is illegal for a site owner to remove content a user posted, but it is legal for peer users, using a voting algorithm, to do so (by virtue of downvoting posts until they are dead or hidden). Would this lead to, for instance, wanting to impose criminal sanction on sockpuppet accounts, since we feel using multiple accounts to downvote is tantamount to interference that would be illegal if done by a moderator? This strikes me as a bit much.
Excellent points. Platforms obviously need to have some power of moderation for spam and off-topic remarks.
One idea for a type of system for adjudicating disputes would be something similar ot the jury system used in common law countries. When a conflict arises (some moderator deletes a post whose poster feels is within the rules), a set of users could be chosen randomly and asked to deliberate whether that is the case or not. This would be similar to a court proceeding, with the accuser and accused allowed to argue their case, but much less formal. Participation in such juries would just be a cost of using the platform. This would not apply to posts that are removed for legal reasons, where the regular legal system would have to be used instead.
Note that spam is generally already illegal, and advertising products with specific health claims that you do not have proof for is definitely illegal in many jurisdictions (fraud / false advertising).
I would also expect that any such moderation should only apply to broadcast messages. Direct, private communication between two or more people must not be moderated in any way (though users should be given certain tools to help them, such as optional spam filters, the ability to block specific people from sending them messages, etc).
One idea for a type of system for adjudicating disputes would be something similar ot the jury system used in common law countries. When a conflict arises (some moderator deletes a post whose poster feels is within the rules), a set of users could be chosen randomly and asked to deliberate whether that is the case or not. This would be similar to a court proceeding, with the accuser and accused allowed to argue their case, but much less formal. Participation in such juries would just be a cost of using the platform. This would not apply to posts that are removed for legal reasons, where the regular legal system would have to be used instead.
Note that spam is generally already illegal, and advertising products with specific health claims that you do not have proof for is definitely illegal in many jurisdictions (fraud / false advertising).
I would also expect that any such moderation should only apply to broadcast messages. Direct, private communication between two or more people must not be moderated in any way (though users should be given certain tools to help them, such as optional spam filters, the ability to block specific people from sending them messages, etc).
[deleted]
[deleted]
Should be allowed to censor but we should still discuss if each particular instance is a good idea or not.
comedically broke take isn't it
Especially since eventually the winds will change, as they always do, and the "but it's a private company" crowd will find little argument against these same companies as they press the censoring boot against their necks. Creating a monster just ends up with that monster running out of control destroying everyone but they naively believe they'll always have it on a tight leash.
Obviously they can and they do. We are discussing whether that is a good thing overall, which is further complicated by the political issues surrounding Venezuela and its current.. dual government.
Venezuela does not have a duel government. It has a government that won the UN certified election and an opposition leader that receives 100% of the US media industry's support.
Come on, link me the source where it says the UN certified the results, I'll be waiting... But I know that you won't link anything that is not from Telesur or RT and that it doesn't exists since they haven't allowed the UN to oversight the elections for quite a while.
My personal opinion is that after reaching a certain size of audience, the rules should be different - e.g. Facebook should be required to keep all points of views, even if they disagree with them, as long as they are legal. But until the rules are not changed it is what it is.
Legal where? Legal in the USA? Or legal in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia?
Probably true in the US. But this is a global platform making decisions about foreign leaders. I highly doubt this same legal reasoning applies to every jurisdiction in which they do business.
Regardless, the more interesting question here is not whether this is technically legal but whether it should be legal. Obviously, there is a lot of social good that can be done by allowing platforms to ban obvious scammers. But it's far from obvious to me that this is scam. And furthermore since Maduro is a head of state, it's important to the health of the democracy for the people to know what he is thinking.
Regardless, the more interesting question here is not whether this is technically legal but whether it should be legal. Obviously, there is a lot of social good that can be done by allowing platforms to ban obvious scammers. But it's far from obvious to me that this is scam. And furthermore since Maduro is a head of state, it's important to the health of the democracy for the people to know what he is thinking.
You want the US Government to legislate a law that mandates Twitter and Facebook cannot deactivate the accounts of foreign leaders/government officials?
People should start thinking twice before using US-controlled platforms/services/anything.
You say US-controlled, but I can't think of a country that would be better than the US in this regard. European countries are not the biggest fans of free speech. And then you have China, Russia, etc. which are even worse.
Perhaps there will be more than one, then. There will be different ideologies which will be protected and different ones which will be censored on each one of them. In total there might be more freedom of speech.
A teacher in high school told us: to the question "which newspaper should I read?" the answer is "not one single newspaper".
A teacher in high school told us: to the question "which newspaper should I read?" the answer is "not one single newspaper".
With federated protocols (like Mastodon) you don't need to trust a third party country. All countries can be part of the same universe, but each one controls their own data.
It is unfortunate, but US shot itself in the foot by proving that it is not willing to be a neutral third party, which it was perceived as in the 90s.
The US hasn't been a neutral third party in any worldwide matter since WW1. The U.S's foreign policy is aggressively selfish (which is good for US citizens)
It's good for owners of defense industry companies. For the average citizen it's probably a net loss. The Iraq War alone cost about $6,300 per US citizen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
I agree with everything but the last part. Invading Iraq got 6,000 Americans killed and did nothing to help US citizens outside of a corrupt few.
That's hard to determine, I think. The wars aren't isolated actions that make or lose money, they're embedded in a frame work, that, at large, has probably been very beneficial. More influence, better trade deals, technological dominance, economic advantages. The average wage in the US is significantly higher than in most of Europe, so average citizens probably do profit.
Every state is selfish, it's one of the fundamental principles of foreign relations. Even when states are altruistic (e.g. the US Centers for Disease Control doing epidemic surveillance and distributing Ebola vaccines in Africa, or sending foreign aid to poverty-stricken countries) ultimately it's for self-serving reasons. The global system is essentially anarchism.
This is sadly under appreciated. Realpolitik is as essential to understanding geopolitics as supply and demand is to understanding microeconomics.
They (social media companies) were given an ultimatum: censor or be broken up. It's almost explicit in the Congress/Senate hearings.
Do you have a source? I really want to read up on this.
There's a balance though. You might have more power if you're perceived as neutral, but actually using power is inherently non-neutral
Have to wonder how long before non-US alternatives pop up and the US loses control of this industry segment. There are already regional alternatives to many of the US's biggest tech companies, so international alternatives might be next. How long before there's a tiktok of Google, where US and western consumers go to a Chinese or Russian source without even considering what the US companies have to offer anymore. Obviously companies in those countries will have their own local biases, but mostly on matters internal to those countries that aren't typically relevant to US and western users.
... unless they want to reach people. Try publishing an app while avoiding the AppStore and the PlayStore - your audience will be fairly limited. Same thing if you're a politician (especially one not currently in office) and an US-controlled service happens to be popular in your country.
On the other hand, though, I doubt that much of this is actual government influence. Most of these actions are probably done based on the personal biases of the moderation team of the platform. These are surely a bit influenced by whatever opinion the current government tries to push, but they will not necessarily align with the current agenda. And this is not really an US problem; in fact, in terms of government influence on private companies, the US is probably one of the better countries.
On the other hand, though, I doubt that much of this is actual government influence. Most of these actions are probably done based on the personal biases of the moderation team of the platform. These are surely a bit influenced by whatever opinion the current government tries to push, but they will not necessarily align with the current agenda. And this is not really an US problem; in fact, in terms of government influence on private companies, the US is probably one of the better countries.
> And this is not really an US problem; in fact, in terms of government influence on private companies, the US is probably one of the better countries.
Only because influence typically goes the other way around in the US. But you're talking about a country whose banking system derives most of its value from government guarantees.
https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/bank-guarantees/
Only because influence typically goes the other way around in the US. But you're talking about a country whose banking system derives most of its value from government guarantees.
https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/bank-guarantees/
I don't want to say the US is great, it isn't. The point is no country is great. A company residing in a country will always be somewhat dependent on that countries government and all of them have some form of subpoena, some form of secret agency or some politicians shoddy enough for backroom dealings. But some countries are worse.
My usual tip in these situations would be to use something under control of a government which does not have much interest in your dealings, but as a politician you're in the unfortunate position that a) basically any country will have a basic interest in your dealings or at least be very close to a superpower that does and b) you'll have to go out and seek your voters, which does not leave you much choice.
My usual tip in these situations would be to use something under control of a government which does not have much interest in your dealings, but as a politician you're in the unfortunate position that a) basically any country will have a basic interest in your dealings or at least be very close to a superpower that does and b) you'll have to go out and seek your voters, which does not leave you much choice.
[deleted]
Has the panel of experts on censoring political leaders convened yet or is FB is doing bans on whims until then.
A lot of this is starting to remind me of the way Galileo and Darwin were treated for announcing their breakthroughs. I know nothing about this drug Maduro is touting, but I can't help worrying that one of these days somebody is going to find an actual cure and the world will never know about it because big social media companies exile them for wrongthink.
You don't announce the discovery of a miracle cure via social media, you announce it via clinical trial papers.
>clinical trial papers
There are multiple occasions in history where a landmark paper was laughed at just to be proven right later. It hardly matter the medium you use to publish.
There are multiple occasions in history where a landmark paper was laughed at just to be proven right later. It hardly matter the medium you use to publish.
How did Galileo and Darwin announce their discoveries?
You're just exemplifying the point. Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time?
Back in the days it would be "you can't just publish trial papers, it has to go through the church"
Back in the days it would be "you can't just publish trial papers, it has to go through the church"
Yes, back in the day, the church would censor evidence that it disagreed with.
Today, we demand evidence to back up claims whether or not we want to believe them.
Today, we demand evidence to back up claims whether or not we want to believe them.
> Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time?
Technically, at our current World state, government regulations say that. And yeah, you have to have the correct credentials and submit your paper to the correct institutions.
Superficially, the system is architectured exactly like the one you are complaining, while in a deeper level every component works in a completely different way. What in practice means that it right now works quite well (could improve, but it works), but it's just a series of isolated institution failings (instead of a full system failure) away from becoming like the other. So, well, keep those institutions in check, but unless somebody comes up with a better system design, there's little point on complaining about it.
Technically, at our current World state, government regulations say that. And yeah, you have to have the correct credentials and submit your paper to the correct institutions.
Superficially, the system is architectured exactly like the one you are complaining, while in a deeper level every component works in a completely different way. What in practice means that it right now works quite well (could improve, but it works), but it's just a series of isolated institution failings (instead of a full system failure) away from becoming like the other. So, well, keep those institutions in check, but unless somebody comes up with a better system design, there's little point on complaining about it.
Which government regulations are those? Could you please provide a CFR citation?
The World Fact Check Act of 2023.
Peer review is “social media.”
The problem with that is, if it's not amplified on social media, it doesn't exist.
There were trials where it was shown that sufficient Vitamin D levels (most people are deficient) is very effective in preventing COVID. It got minor attention, but no-one is pursuing it on a widespread basis. Maybe it works maybe not, but even if there were clinical trials, it gets crowded out by what's being widely circulated in the media.
There were trials where it was shown that sufficient Vitamin D levels (most people are deficient) is very effective in preventing COVID. It got minor attention, but no-one is pursuing it on a widespread basis. Maybe it works maybe not, but even if there were clinical trials, it gets crowded out by what's being widely circulated in the media.
It must be your bubble/country, because in France it has been said and recommended by the Health Ministry that it probably helps, and doctors prescribe supplements with Vitamin D en masse.
Vitamin D has been recommended forever for general health and is available over the counter. Nothing is stopping people from taking and giving vitamin D in huge doses.
the medium you use does not establish the truth of your claim.
"Peer reviewed scientific journal" is, at least in theory, a process as much as a medium, and the process at least makes an attempt to screen the worst misinformation or least rigorous scientific methodology through the mechanism of peer review.
(That it often fails at this isn't a point in dispute. The fact that the medium entails a process and that the process, at least nominally, serves truth is.)
There's also the reputational role that such journals serve, effectively transferring the trust bestowed on the journal to the authors appearing within it, where trust is a belief extended beyond the extent of verifiable fact though not in opposition to them (as in the case of blind faith).
To that extent, and in a world in which each individual receiving a piece of information cannot independently assess and verify that information, your premise is in large part false: the medium used does serve to indicate the truth of a claim.
(As someone who's made a point of publishing pseudonymousely and in numerous online, unreviewed media, I'm aware of the challenges of trying to assert facts, even those which are reasonably independently verifiable, without the benefits of a persistent and highly-established identity or other indicia of trust, reputation, or credentialing. In balance I prefer the freedoms that come with this, though the challenges are also considerable.)
(That it often fails at this isn't a point in dispute. The fact that the medium entails a process and that the process, at least nominally, serves truth is.)
There's also the reputational role that such journals serve, effectively transferring the trust bestowed on the journal to the authors appearing within it, where trust is a belief extended beyond the extent of verifiable fact though not in opposition to them (as in the case of blind faith).
To that extent, and in a world in which each individual receiving a piece of information cannot independently assess and verify that information, your premise is in large part false: the medium used does serve to indicate the truth of a claim.
(As someone who's made a point of publishing pseudonymousely and in numerous online, unreviewed media, I'm aware of the challenges of trying to assert facts, even those which are reasonably independently verifiable, without the benefits of a persistent and highly-established identity or other indicia of trust, reputation, or credentialing. In balance I prefer the freedoms that come with this, though the challenges are also considerable.)
It's worth bearing in mind that Galileo was not treated poorly for his scientific advances. He was treated poorly because his scientific claims tended to run in advance of what he could prove, because he made an ass of himself when his peers pointed this out, and then he went on to antagonize the temporal powers that be.
[deleted]
Social media already reminds me of an era where the town idiot's voice is amplified louder than the Darwins' or the Galileos'.
Social media isn’t really the proper avenue for vetting science.
Social media companies aren't really the proper vetters of science.
They don't claim to be. All they're doing is applying existing scientific consensus to new, unverified claims. If after going through legitimate peer review, this treatment Maduro is touting proves to be effective, you can be sure it will be allowed into the discussion as well.
Social media companies take on immense legal liability when they allow high-profile figures to promote unproven medical treatments. The current approach obviously loses a lot of nuance, but the alternative is opening themselves up to litigation when, for example, users ingest fish tank cleaner after hearing from the President that there's a miracle drug which goes by the same name [1].
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/52012242
Social media companies take on immense legal liability when they allow high-profile figures to promote unproven medical treatments. The current approach obviously loses a lot of nuance, but the alternative is opening themselves up to litigation when, for example, users ingest fish tank cleaner after hearing from the President that there's a miracle drug which goes by the same name [1].
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/52012242
In a sense, we already had some taste of tech-powers-that-are blocking information that ended up being true ( Biden's Hunter drug issues ).
edit: I am going to add some sources, since I am not certain why the downvoting is taking place on this particular comment. Not sure how the statement is controversial.
[Biden himself admits issues with drugs]https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-opens-about-add... [Same thing only in his book]https://people.com/politics/hunter-biden-to-release-memoir-d...
edit: I am going to add some sources, since I am not certain why the downvoting is taking place on this particular comment. Not sure how the statement is controversial.
[Biden himself admits issues with drugs]https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-opens-about-add... [Same thing only in his book]https://people.com/politics/hunter-biden-to-release-memoir-d...
"Hunter Biden's drug issues" were never blocked.
I guess I will bite. What was blocked then?
It makes Biden look bad.
If the issue had gotten full press coverage if might have flipped some states.
It’s also a reminder that tech companies can now decide elections. Angry denial is easier then rational thought.
If the issue had gotten full press coverage if might have flipped some states.
It’s also a reminder that tech companies can now decide elections. Angry denial is easier then rational thought.
People promoting ivermectin have been making claims with appropriate expressed confidence. It seems to have decent evidence, too.
They laughed at Jesus. They laughed at Ghandi.
But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
[deleted]
At least he still has his Mastodon account https://mastodon.social/@Nicolas_Maduro
lucian1900(2)
Facebook is acting on behalf of the US's long-term, bipartisan effort to undermine any Latin American government that doesn't grant its corporations access to that nation's resources. More specifically, the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have undermined the Venezuelan government in many ways, including supporting coup attempts.[1]
I'm not arguing that I support what Maduro said. He has an awful record as a leader. I'm arguing that this is the natural result of social media censorship. It's censorship by the US government by proxy.
Here is a simple test to see if the above statement is true: would Facebook censor a world leader as swiftly and as severely if this were a leader of an allied state, or even a leader within our own government?
[1] https://theintercept.com/2020/05/09/venezuela-coup-regime-ch...
I'm not arguing that I support what Maduro said. He has an awful record as a leader. I'm arguing that this is the natural result of social media censorship. It's censorship by the US government by proxy.
Here is a simple test to see if the above statement is true: would Facebook censor a world leader as swiftly and as severely if this were a leader of an allied state, or even a leader within our own government?
[1] https://theintercept.com/2020/05/09/venezuela-coup-regime-ch...
dukeofdoom(4)
Conventional wisdom in the US is that Maduro is a ruthless, violent dictator, who has suppressed opposition, smuggled drugs, funded terrorism, violated human rights, etc.
But that doesn't get you kicked off Facebook. Facebook and Twitter happily provide platforms to violent, human rights abusing regimes.
...but recommend one snake oil cure for Covid-19, and suddenly the hammer drops, I guess? Interesting priorities.
But that doesn't get you kicked off Facebook. Facebook and Twitter happily provide platforms to violent, human rights abusing regimes.
...but recommend one snake oil cure for Covid-19, and suddenly the hammer drops, I guess? Interesting priorities.
They have a specific policy against bad medical advice (which is easy to determine), but not against being a ruthless dictator (which can be very subjective). Seems consistent to me.
Bad medical device is easy to determine?
Are masks effective or ineffective against covid? Are fats good or bad for you? Are carbs bad for you? How many times a day should you eat? How much cholesterol in your food matters? What's the perfect amount of water to drink? Is veganism healthy? is paleo healthy?
Are masks effective or ineffective against covid? Are fats good or bad for you? Are carbs bad for you? How many times a day should you eat? How much cholesterol in your food matters? What's the perfect amount of water to drink? Is veganism healthy? is paleo healthy?
Your questions seem to exploit an asymmetry between the comment you're responding to and your examples. I can't tell you "how many times a day should you eat", but I can tell you there are theoretically claims about eating which are obviously beyond the pale -- for example claims about Mystical Gurus who live for years without eating off the sunlight.
I would imagine that if I were asked to determine whether something is bad medical advice, I might consider some of the following questions:
- What is the strength of the consensus on the issue? - Does the claim advance evidence that the consensus is wrong which actually engages with the consensus? - Does the claim advance a powerful cause to action? - If wrong, is the claim likely to lead to immediate or irreparable harm if followed? - Is the claim posed authoritatively or speculatively? - Is the person doing the posing attempting to convince others, or just expressing themselves? - Does the claim engage with its own shortcomings or leave room for the possibility that it is wrong? - Does the claim have only private health consequences, or does it have public health consequences?
And while each of those have a continuum of answers, I might holistically come to the conclusion that a particular claim is "bad medical advice", and I might do so fairly easily, given a certain threshold for bad medical advice.
It seems to me less that you're saying it's hard to determine that something is bad medical advice, and more that there exists some medical advice which is neither clearly bad nor good. The two things aren't in opposition.
So, I feel comfortable saying "Human beings should not drink water because it is poison" is bad medical advice -- and it was very easy for me to determine that -- while a debate about, say, whether there's a particular target amount of water or if people should just drink water when thirsty might be supported or unsupported without rising to the standard of bad medical advice.
By the standards I have just elucidated, the Maduro claim strikes me as trivially bad-faith and unsupported medical advice made declaratively to a huge audience with fairly large likely public health risk, and so I would qualify it as bad medical advice.
I would imagine that if I were asked to determine whether something is bad medical advice, I might consider some of the following questions:
- What is the strength of the consensus on the issue? - Does the claim advance evidence that the consensus is wrong which actually engages with the consensus? - Does the claim advance a powerful cause to action? - If wrong, is the claim likely to lead to immediate or irreparable harm if followed? - Is the claim posed authoritatively or speculatively? - Is the person doing the posing attempting to convince others, or just expressing themselves? - Does the claim engage with its own shortcomings or leave room for the possibility that it is wrong? - Does the claim have only private health consequences, or does it have public health consequences?
And while each of those have a continuum of answers, I might holistically come to the conclusion that a particular claim is "bad medical advice", and I might do so fairly easily, given a certain threshold for bad medical advice.
It seems to me less that you're saying it's hard to determine that something is bad medical advice, and more that there exists some medical advice which is neither clearly bad nor good. The two things aren't in opposition.
So, I feel comfortable saying "Human beings should not drink water because it is poison" is bad medical advice -- and it was very easy for me to determine that -- while a debate about, say, whether there's a particular target amount of water or if people should just drink water when thirsty might be supported or unsupported without rising to the standard of bad medical advice.
By the standards I have just elucidated, the Maduro claim strikes me as trivially bad-faith and unsupported medical advice made declaratively to a huge audience with fairly large likely public health risk, and so I would qualify it as bad medical advice.
No it's not easy but why would Facebook be bad at it? They can consult with the worlds best. Is there any reason to believe they have performed poorly in this regard?
Aren't human rights transgressions also easy to determine? Or the harmful lies that Trump slung into the world during his presidency? Facebook is consistent on whom to censor as long as the censored don't hold too much sway over Facebook, like Trump did near the end of his presidency.
I’m with you, but one is something that someone on the other side can claim “is just an opinion”, the other can be backed by scientific evidence. As far as speech goes, censoring the latter is a lot easier to justify than censoring the former.
I've seen plenty of covid-19 snake oil cures being advertized on prominent Reddit subreddits without consequences, so there's that.
First issues are fully political, the oil thing is mostly medical, it's less sensitive.
I can kind of see the difference possibly being that Politics is slow moving. Journalists will call out bad behavior and other journalists will call out bad journalism.
With some events - such as the pandemic, or the aftermath of the US election, information doesn’t have time to pass through the normal cycle. The damage is already done if a lie gets viral the wrong way. It’s better to suppress one truth and one lie (overreact) then.
The key differentiator isn’t “how bad is this” but “how damaging is it if this information reaches X million people in 48 hours?”.
With some events - such as the pandemic, or the aftermath of the US election, information doesn’t have time to pass through the normal cycle. The damage is already done if a lie gets viral the wrong way. It’s better to suppress one truth and one lie (overreact) then.
The key differentiator isn’t “how bad is this” but “how damaging is it if this information reaches X million people in 48 hours?”.
Following that line of thought, the best option for journalists is to only tell the truth if it coincides with "what's best to tell the public" and lie otherwise.
I believe that centrally planning "public opinion" is similar to centrally planning the economy. It's alluring because it'd solve so many problems, it takes a gigantic ego to think one was able to, and it usually doesn't end well.
I believe that centrally planning "public opinion" is similar to centrally planning the economy. It's alluring because it'd solve so many problems, it takes a gigantic ego to think one was able to, and it usually doesn't end well.
> Following that line of thought, the best option for journalists is to only tell the truth if it coincides with "what's best to tell the public" and lie otherwise.
Journalists wouldn’t remain credible (and thus relevant) that way.
This isn’t about states centrally planning opinion. This is about everyone’s duty to not do harm by relaying bad information. That includes journalists who should properly vet information - but not resort so self-censorship, as well as social media that shouldn’t let “a lie travel half way around the globe before the truth can get its boots on”.
Journalists wouldn’t remain credible (and thus relevant) that way.
This isn’t about states centrally planning opinion. This is about everyone’s duty to not do harm by relaying bad information. That includes journalists who should properly vet information - but not resort so self-censorship, as well as social media that shouldn’t let “a lie travel half way around the globe before the truth can get its boots on”.
> But recommend a snake oil cure for Covid-19, and you'll be in real trouble.
Except if you're in a position to get them in trouble. Remember that Trump (mostly) got away with this while in office.
Except if you're in a position to get them in trouble. Remember that Trump (mostly) got away with this while in office.
Don't expect consistency: they just do whatever they think other people want them to do. You're expecting a higher level of thought than is really present. Their 'moral' guidepost is just whatever the blob of upper middle class fashionable opinion is.
Or rather they do whatever seems least likely to upset their major advertising customers. And that's not a bad thing: they have a business to run.
I worry about this kind of censorship. There is no guarantee that the WHO is right either. Remember that the entire group of doctors thought blood letting was a good idea. How can we be sure that modern science doesn't have significant gaps in understanding either? Remember how the majority thought the housing market was too big to crash?
I'd much prefer no censorship and let people decide for themselves. What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game.
I'd much prefer no censorship and let people decide for themselves. What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game.
Im not disagreeing or anything but is bloodletting a bad thing? Genuinely asking. I thought it was known regenerating ones bloodcells is a good thing. Is that erroneous? Last time I went to a blooddrive I was browsing a pamphlet that contained some benefits of giving blood aside from helping others in need.
It isn't, the practice stopped in the 19th century or so, its still used for some ailments but its not a cure all as they used to believe 200 years ago.
https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/sawbones-bloodletti...
PS: Fun fact, George Washington was killed because of blood letting. they basically bled him to death.
https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/sawbones-bloodletti...
PS: Fun fact, George Washington was killed because of blood letting. they basically bled him to death.
There is some limited evidence that excess iron could be a risk factor for heart disease. This may be part of the reason why menopause seems to increase the risk of heart disease in women, even after adjusting for age. So it's possible that blood letting could be beneficial from that standpoint, but it remains unproven. And there don't appear to be any significant risks from occasional blood donation.
> I'd much prefer no censorship and let people decide for themselves. What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game.
Indeed, raising everyone’s critical abilities is a great idea. Hopefully it gets done
Indeed, raising everyone’s critical abilities is a great idea. Hopefully it gets done
> What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game
How do you propose we do that, and what do you propose while waiting for the day where that's the case? The proliferation of Q lunatics and anti-vaxxers shows that we're not really there and there are real-world deadly consequences to "letting people decide for themselves". When it comes to public health, most people can't decide for themselves because they lack the medical background needed to understand the science and decide.
How do you propose we do that, and what do you propose while waiting for the day where that's the case? The proliferation of Q lunatics and anti-vaxxers shows that we're not really there and there are real-world deadly consequences to "letting people decide for themselves". When it comes to public health, most people can't decide for themselves because they lack the medical background needed to understand the science and decide.
> How do you propose we do that, [...] ?
Stop lying to them.
Stop lying to them.
Good, let's try to convince anti-vaxxers, Q people, Covid-deniers and what not of that, it will surely work!
Of course it won't, because people tend to listen to other people due to a variety of reasons ( personal charisma, luck, circumstances, etc.). We wouldn't have cults and science deniers otherwise.
Of course it won't, because people tend to listen to other people due to a variety of reasons ( personal charisma, luck, circumstances, etc.). We wouldn't have cults and science deniers otherwise.
> Good, let's try to convince anti-vaxxers, Q people, Covid-deniers and what not of that, it will surely work!
You don't seem to understand. Don't tell them on Day 1 that mask are useless, and on Day 2 that mask are mandatory under threat of jail. Tell them on Day 1 that you fucked up and destroyed mask supplies a few years before and that you're not prepared anymore. Though, that will never happen as these people want to get re-elected and do-no-wrong.
If masks are useless on Day 1, they are useless on Day 2. If not, it means that people making these statement are full of shit on potentially ANY subject and thus can not be looked upon to (including vaccination).
You don't seem to understand. Don't tell them on Day 1 that mask are useless, and on Day 2 that mask are mandatory under threat of jail. Tell them on Day 1 that you fucked up and destroyed mask supplies a few years before and that you're not prepared anymore. Though, that will never happen as these people want to get re-elected and do-no-wrong.
If masks are useless on Day 1, they are useless on Day 2. If not, it means that people making these statement are full of shit on potentially ANY subject and thus can not be looked upon to (including vaccination).
Or maybe our knowledge of the situation and the unknown virus was evolving? And the rate of asymptomatic cases, and the fact that they still spread the virus wasn't initially known/certain? Why the binary approach?
> Why the binary approach?
It has nothing to do with a binary approach. The anti-masks arguments were very much a red-herring argument really being all about on anti-hoarding and anti-panic arguments from unprepared institutions (despite hoarding taxpayers dollars for years). A couple of month earlier, just mentioning the damn thing was enough to get you banned from social media. I was even arguing about the difference between test positivity rate and actual cases (including asymptomatic ones) early on, especially wrt. seasonal flu numbers, being treated like a complete fool (and still am).
The amount of layers upon layers upon layers of ass covering about all this has been staggering.
It has nothing to do with a binary approach. The anti-masks arguments were very much a red-herring argument really being all about on anti-hoarding and anti-panic arguments from unprepared institutions (despite hoarding taxpayers dollars for years). A couple of month earlier, just mentioning the damn thing was enough to get you banned from social media. I was even arguing about the difference between test positivity rate and actual cases (including asymptomatic ones) early on, especially wrt. seasonal flu numbers, being treated like a complete fool (and still am).
The amount of layers upon layers upon layers of ass covering about all this has been staggering.
I guess they complied [1]
[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375543592018657285
[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375543592018657285
It's a disgrace that the USA, founded on a constitution that defends free speech, has globalist private companies operating out of the USA gagging opinions and dissent while blatantly amplifying factions and ideas it is aligned with.
They have every right as a S230 regulated company to do this, but we have no other free speech places to go as alternative services are closed down.
We are going to see Trump create a parallel social media universe platform shortly that will be a disaster for unity, beliefs and the credibility of what's left of the 'corporate entertainment media' as Tulsi Gabbard calls the oligarch owned omnipotent corporate 'news 'channels.
We are going to see Trump create a parallel social media universe platform shortly that will be a disaster for unity, beliefs and the credibility of what's left of the 'corporate entertainment media' as Tulsi Gabbard calls the oligarch owned omnipotent corporate 'news 'channels.
Carvativir is the same as (according to Wikipedia) or derived from (according to other sites) carvacrol. From this, it took me five minutes to find evidence that we should actually investigate this and can't just dismiss Maduro as wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768712/
> Carvacrol alone exhibited high antiviral activity against RV with a SI of 33, but it was less efficient than the oil for the other viruses. Thus, Mexican oregano oil and its main component, carvacrol, are able to inhibit different human and animal viruses in vitro. Specifically, the antiviral effects of Mexican oregano oil on ACVR-HHV-1 and HRSV and of carvacrol on RV justify more detailed studies.
Even just on Wikipedia, it mentions apparently well-known antimicrobial effects, which sounds like it may help with secondary pneumonia caused by COVID (so even putting aside the possibility of antiviral effects, it may help reduce some symptoms): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvacrol#Toxicology
> Carvacrol alone exhibited high antiviral activity against RV with a SI of 33, but it was less efficient than the oil for the other viruses. Thus, Mexican oregano oil and its main component, carvacrol, are able to inhibit different human and animal viruses in vitro. Specifically, the antiviral effects of Mexican oregano oil on ACVR-HHV-1 and HRSV and of carvacrol on RV justify more detailed studies.
Even just on Wikipedia, it mentions apparently well-known antimicrobial effects, which sounds like it may help with secondary pneumonia caused by COVID (so even putting aside the possibility of antiviral effects, it may help reduce some symptoms): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvacrol#Toxicology
It was the same story with hydroxychloroquine, which was a promising treatment until trump made the mistake of mentioning it publicly.
These purely ideologically driven non-experts in media and tech have absolutely no business playing gatekeeper with censorship. They're doing far more harm than good.
These purely ideologically driven non-experts in media and tech have absolutely no business playing gatekeeper with censorship. They're doing far more harm than good.
Killing viruses or bacteria in vitro is a vastly different thing than killing them in vivo. Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source.
https://xkcd.com/1217/
https://xkcd.com/1217/
> Killing viruses or bacteria in vitro is a vastly different thing than killing them in vivo.
> https://xkcd.com/1217/
Carvacrol is a component of oregano oil, a common herbal supplement. This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong.
> Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source.
Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something?
> https://xkcd.com/1217/
Carvacrol is a component of oregano oil, a common herbal supplement. This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong.
> Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source.
Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something?
> This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong.
How so?
> Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something?
Well it's not Nature, that's for sure
How so?
> Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something?
Well it's not Nature, that's for sure
The premise of the XKCD strip is that whatever was being tested isn't necessarily safe for humans. This however we already know is safe for humans because it's available in over-the-counter supplements, and the herb it comes from is used in cooking.
What? That is not the premise of the XKCD strip at all. Not even close.
"When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin 'kills cancer cells in a petri dish', keep in mind, so does a handgun"
"When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin 'kills cancer cells in a petri dish', keep in mind, so does a handgun"
Luckily we soon have Facebook's Supreme Court deciding whom to censor or not. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/inside-t...
The beginning of the next era of humanity. Corporations wield more power than governments.
Because the WHO is the only source of truth...
All this "nuance" about censorship vs deplatforming, or worries about misinformation, just sound like rationalizing something we know is wrong.
This power is always abused. It's always just another way to say "sure, I believe in democracy, so long as I get to 'educate' you and prevent you from hearing anything that might change your mind about who to vote for".
Religion is "misinformation". How long before that is censored as well?
Fundamentally, people scared of misinformation are people scared of diversity. They believe there's one right answer and that everyone must agree.