39
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
39 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
124 readers
1 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 2 years ago
This is about attempts to stop folks from spreading provably wrong info online that's killing people. It's like protecting the free speech of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The headline is also overstated. Its a preliminary injunction and of course its from a Trump nominee.
But if the government can pressure platforms to remove provably false information that is actively killing people, it will have a chilling effect on my constitutional freedom to lie to people. Won't somebody please think of the grifters and anti-sciencers?
Saying those things before having any data to back them up was indeed anti-science.
But somehow the government and corporations doing so is okay?
That was the data we had at the time, yes. New data can mean new stances, and that's okay. But notice the order of operations there; new data, then new stance. Not the other way around.
They had data showing otherwise. They were silenced. I'll keep bringing this up, but the director of the CDC at the time said there was significant evidence to investigate the lab leak theory, but was forcibly sidelined. They seem to have gotten your model backwards. This wasn't the only time it happened, but people will keep crying "sources" since they know it's now difficult to find information that was removed from journal sites, etc.
Uh, sources? Specifically about the forced resignation.
Oh, that's the easiest one.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64891745
You didn't read that article, did you? It doesn't support your stance.
Almost all those things haven't been proven true or accepted by most experts. Stop lying.
Asking questions is fine to inform yourself. Asking questions to purposely push a narrative isn't
Gonna need a source on that one champ.
ok, sure.
That was contingent on half the population not making it their identity to spread disease.
Yes, it's been proven time and time again that cloth masks reduce transmission and severity.
Yes, it is antiscience for laymen to question things they don't understand at all.
Same.
Started out pretty good though!
Nobody is "begrudgingly" accepting scientific results. But you want to tell that story, right? You're looking for an "us vs. them" situation, but that's not how science works.
Also, I think some of your facts are not actually facts.
Finally, a question itself is not "anti-science". How could it be? However, if you're using a question as a smokescreen to confuse readers or viewers to push your selfish political agenda, that would be shady politics, and it would have nothing to do with science at all.
There were many scientists that were saying we should investigate the lab origin. They were all silenced, including the CDC director at the time.
How were they silenced? Are they in jail or something?
And even if this is true, what does investigating a lab leak do to stop the spread of a virus actively working its way through the population?
Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
YES, there was little evidence AND there still isn't conclusive evidence that it was. They just used it as a reason to be racist toward Asian (and it did provably increase hate crime toward Asian people).
Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
YES, if people would have actually isolated, we would have had far fewer cases shortly after.
Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
YES, they are still effective and far better than not wearing a mask at all.
Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy/long term side effects (I'm combining 2 questions here) of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
YES, the vaccine was not given to people widespread until after thorough testing. It's fact that almost any vaccine side effect will occur within the first few weeks of it being administered. There was also information and testing about the efficacy before it was widely distributed.
People questioning this stuff were given the answers by scientists, specialists, people with knowledge, and they outright denied the truth of the data. It's one thing to question, it's another thing to yell questions into the void and pretend you don't hear the answers.
To say, as in to state as fact, yes.
To question, no.
There's a wide gap between "covid originated in a lab" and "covid could have originated in a lab".
Yet the then director of the CDC was forcibly sidelined simply for asking that they investigate. Interesting take.
Source?
It's the same gap as Covid COULD have come from nature vs Covid DID come from nature, which is what the media and Fauci were saying.
Thank you!
Yes. It would be accurate to say that it is possible that the Covid originated in a lab in China, but the evidence is mixed and it is certainly not provided.
No idea, because I don't know who you claimed to say it, when they said it or in which county
Yes - because it's much too simplistic. Depending on the design of the mask, the material and how it was warn cloth masks certainly had an effect on reducing infection - in particular infected mask wearers are less likely to infect others
No - and questions about long-term efficacy were front and centre of studies into how long (for example) vaccines shots lasted. The point was that even short - term efficacy was pretty useful.
No. It's absolutely scientific to ask questions about it. It is is anti-science tio make stuff up about probable long-term effects when the mechanism of the drug are pretty well understood.
Some of them are "anti-science", some aren't. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make, other than "Experts bad"
Who gives a shit, frankly. The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.
This is extremely good news for foreign state-run disinformation farms, or domestic terrorists who want to spread disinformation or panic. "Go for it".
I just want to point out that your very first question is irrelevant to the rest. Whereever it originated, we needed to stop the spread but propagandists got hold of people through paranoia and pushed them to behave in ways that INCREASED the spread, and it started with stuff like the first question.
Exactly! We're just asking questions! Like how many shots does it take to induce fetal-alcohol syndrom? Because your mom DEFINITELY knows the answer. And when will these WOKE folks (hehe, rhyme time) stop being so persistant with their knowledge and science and let us just say the stupid shit we think of on the spot? Also, why are you allowed to speak if there is a god? The world may never know, but penis. (( | )) B:::::::::D---~~~ (GET IT? BUTT PENIS!) i'M jUsT aSkInG QuEsTiOnS!
In a land where "lies" are suppressed, he who claims to know the truth is king. The sentiment of suppressing lies is perhaps rightous, but who determines the truth? It damn well wasn't scientists during the pandemic.
Edit: hell, even Zuck himself said he was told to censor true information.
If you actually listened to scientists during the pandemic, or read papers - you would you know that the main theme was "there is lots of stuff we don't know, or are unsure about". Given that, however - there needed to be public health guidance based on the best evidence and probablitlities at the time.
On the other side, there were people spouting, unsourced, unsupported, nonsensical bullshit that would directly contribute to people killing themselves.
They were literally just making up arbitrary rules that had nothing to do with science, and saying it WAS based on science. Meanwhile the then director of the CDC said we should investigate if the virus came from a lab as well as if it had a natural origin, and was forcibly sidelined as a result. Don't even try to say they were following the science.
Edit: Also, if you're not even sure what the truth is, what gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?
Give me a solid example of the "they" in this case, the rule in question and the date that that the rule was imposed.
Are you talking about Rochelle Walensky? If so, there are many possible reasons why she decided to resign, but I can't find a single source saying it was because she said there should be an investigation into Covid's source.
Edit: Ah, you are talking about Robert R. Redfield. So from what I can tell, his downfall was that he wasn't being scientific - he stated that the he thought it most likely that it was a lab-leak, and that certainly didn't win him any friends because the assertions he made weren't well supported. But was he "forced to resign because of that" - looking at the coverage from back then, he was under fire for multiple reasons, not just that. I don't think we can say that was the sole or even main reason for his departure.
Because the process of science (especially in fast-moving situations) is all about producing increasingly accurate pictures of the truth. Scientists are highly resistant to characterising something as the truth - there often more to explore. You can absolutely have scientists with different opinions - but they will be looking at evidence, not just making stuff up.
You ask
The silencing isn't being done by scientists, its being done by public health officials and that is somewhat different,. Public health officials take the best evidence as presented by scientific consensus and have to create messaging designed to minimise the number of deaths and maximise wellbeing. If the scientific consensus is that vaccination is safe and effective - that messaging will save millions of lives. Some Russian bot factory amplying a ludicrous idea like "the vaccines will alter your DNA or make you infertile" is specifically designed to kill people.
So if any one wants, I’m running a sale on Inverpectin.
For the low price of 69.69, you could get a months supply- but wait, there’s more. If you order in the next 30 seconds, I’ll give you a second months supply free- up to six months when you buy six! That’s a years worth of protection from Covick!
(Please note the evil FDA and CDC are saying inverpectin doesn’t do what I say it does, and is insisting Inveepeftin caused man-boob development. It’s all lied! I swear!)
Agreed. But I wouldn't say it's overstated; it's misleading. It's largely a quote from the judge, who may be an idiot, but they said what they said. "Trump-appointed judge rules that Biden Administration went too Far in Preventing Medical Misinformation," is wonky but more accurate.
yeah but it will go to the supreme court and we all know how much they love the current administration.