Slashdot Mirror
Teen Who Defied Anti-Vax Mom Says She Got False Information From One Source: Facebook (washingtonpost.com)
An 18-year-old from Ohio who famously inoculated himself against his mother's wishes in December says he
attributes his mother's anti-vaccine ideology to a single source: Facebook [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. From a report: Ethan Lindenberger, a high school senior, testified Tuesday before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and underscored the importance of "credible" information. In contrast, he said, the false and deep-rooted beliefs his mother held -- that vaccines were dangerous -- were perpetuated by social media. Specifically, he said, she turned to anti-vaccine groups on social media for evidence that supported her point of view. In an interview with The Washington Post on Tuesday, Lindenberger said Facebook, or websites that were linked on Facebook, is really the only source his mother ever relied on for her anti-vaccine information.
I started to base all my opinions on stuff that I read on 4chan. You wouldn't believe the change in my quality of life.
Facebook wasn't around 18 years ago. Even the stupid summary says that she went to Facebook to CONFIRM her already held idiotic beliefs. That means she did NOT get the false information from ONE source - Facebook. She already had the false information from somewhere else - probably that idiot Jenny McCarthy since that would be closer to the time. She used Facebook for confirmation bias only. Stuck in her bubble of idiots.
In school we were all taught to look for multiple sources of information. In this womans case the case was made to not trust the internet and to look at encyclopedias.
It is not up to facebook to restrict information it is up to individual people to look to experts and find multiple pieces of credible info.
captcha: politics
... breaking news at 10
I don't respond to or upvote ACs
...a second anti-vax related story in one day. We are all commented-out from the heated arguments in the prior story! There are no opinions left to post to this one.
...because the people who are stupid enough to easily believe all the crap they read on social media are usually the ones who are on social media the most. Oh, and those are the people having the most kids. The world is rapidly becoming the Idiocracy movie.
Looks like we'll have to put the state in charge of both social media and raising our children to keep anecdotes like this from occurring.
People have always leaned towards sources that confirmed their already-held beliefs. I fear this pretext to censor information in favor of government-approved speech. It'll be a short step from officially-approved propaganda.
Well, that settles it then. Emmanuel Goldste ... I mean, Facebook, is the source of all evil.
Seriously, what are we supposed to do with this? Lynch Zuckerberg? Set up an office of censorship to make sure that no Moms get false information from anywhere? What, exactly?
Indeed. Natural selection at its technological finest.
Are they implying that unpopular opinions are a new thing and are the Internet's fault? What is this... the basis for censorship?! Humans, please stop blaming the Internet or Mikey's Web Page for reinforcing you own strongly-held beliefs!!
As a kid people got information from "the internet" and everyone knew that information was not reliable. Facebook is just like "the internet" used to be.. it's just an amalgamation of tons of users random pages/posts/links. Facebook absolutely should not be the one curating people posts or eliminating links in the name of correcting stupidity or protecting people from misinformation. It should be open and free to all to be as stupid as you like. If your education doesn't teach you not to trust random internet advice then you probably were home schooled.
Seriously, who cares? People are going to pick and choose their sources to support their views. The implication of this "story" is more "wrong think" suppression, and that is far more dangerous than a few idiots not vaccinating.
It is interesting. If this is a common pattern (and I think it is), that means Facebook is the best place for an education campaign. This is a democracy with free speech (more or less) and we're not meant to solve problems of ignorance through government force or corporate censorship, but by winning in the marketplace of ideas.
Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right. The budget needed to drown Facebook in pro-Vax truth is tiny by government standards, especially if Facebook decides to give some free "air time" to the cause.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Anyone stop to think.. If this kid is 18, and his mother only got news from facebook to not vaccinate, what did she do between 2001 when he was born and 2006(assuming she was early on the facebook bandwagon)? Most vaccines are given age 0-3...
So why the moral panic?
Because people who don't get vaccines don't just kill/maim themselves, they also can lead to people who are allergic to vaccines, or otherwise cannot be vaccinated, to be infected with these controllable diseases?
Had this man not been inoculated at all in the first 18 years of his life? Because if that's the case I don't think that Facebook can be solely blamed.
No the implication of this story is that social media once again enables the gullible to be targeted via misinformation campaigns. What do Anti-vaxers, flat earthers, Anti-gmo crusaders, and a certain branch of one of our main political parties all have in common? They get their information from Facebook. Ill actually defend Facebook here. They are the platform, the scammers and the scammed just happen to both use it.
Looks, I'll be the first in line to trash Facebook for all the things they do wrong. But just the same, I prefer to have an honest discussion about root issues. Facebook didn't tell him mom that vaccinations were bad. Stupid people using Facebook did.
If you don't want to use Facebook because they're not cracking down on anti-vaxxer crap, fine, boycott it. I'm surprised all the flaws about Facebook haven't led you to boycott it until now, in fact. But don't suggest that Facebook is at fault. They're not.
- Pacific Bell didn't call in the bomb threat.
- The US Postal Service didn't send someone anthrax.
- Highway 101 didn't stop you from getting to work on time.
These are all networks being used by people to do harmful (or at the very least, stupid) things. Go after them. Regulate them. Do the hard work and propose how we're supposed to, in the realm of free speech and the right to be wrong, regulate stupid people.
Seriously, who cares?
People who are obsessed with telling others what to say, think and do. They are on an outrage power trip where everything and everyone that disagrees with them needs to be eradicated.
Facebook is a megaphone for disinformation. True, there was disinformation around before they existed, before the internet existed, but to spread it you needed a budget. Facebook is like owning a printing press with a built-in distribution system.
If you're disseminating information that harms people, seriously harms them in some instances, where's the accountability?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Is it not obvious to everybody that this show is all being orchestrated to drum up support for censorship?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
We can't rely on natural selection to solve all our problems. For one thing it takes too long and there's no guarantee that the stupid people will get a preventable disease that kills them before they pass on their stupid genes. Secondly, it mostly doesn't even effect them, just their children and other people's children. Thirdly, as the brave young man in the story proves, stupidity seems to be transmitted mostly by memes rather than genes, so natural selection doesn't work on it at all.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
There are idiots on facebook! Quick, censor everything!
I for one, absolutely trust the Facebook Censor Bureau to tell me what I can and cannot read.
Morons just look for confirmation of their misconceptions. Ordinarily, I would not mind, but anti-vaxxers inflict serious harm on others, in particular on those that cannot be vaccinated for medical reason and on their own children, which clearly is child-abuse.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right."
That isn't my experience. Because it isn't enough to be right for the wrong reasons. You win people over with a strawman oversimplified version of the truth and then they very quickly get swayed by a slightly more informed person with the opposing view. The truth is usually complicated and grey and full of thousands of concessions to the other sides talking points that are crippling in SOUNDING right but essential to actually being right.
Very few people actually want to be right, they just want the people they are impressed with to be impressed with them and pretend that means they are right.
Why the fuck is an adult (well, legally anyways) getting all this attention for doing something that adults are expected to do? I just filed my taxes, where's my standing ovation?
Any more than microsoft outlook is a source.
The people posting things on there are sources.
These are the same people who believe in penis enlargement emails.
Let's start with, I'm very pro-vaccine. However, pro-vaccine people always make the arguments based on the incredibly small risk of taking vaccines versus the potential side effects and the small (but much bigger) risk of the associate diseases. This is a correct, rational assumption. What I don't understand is how so many people in the pro-vaccine camp lose their goddamn minds over the incredibly tiny risk to people who can't get vaccinated. We're talking about an incredibly small number of people, facing an incredibly unlikely disease, and facing an incredibly small added risk due to a small number of unvaccinated people. This incredibly small number, whatever it is, is some how good enough to justify people to be forceably injected with a foreign substance that has an incredibly tiny, but existent risk associated with it. That math doesn't seem very rational to me.
He also said his mother wasn't stupid. These two positions are in direct conflict with each other. Regardless, good for him.
On another level, I can't help but feel this anti-vax nonsense is a species response to an unhealthy breeding environment.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"Lindenberger said Facebook, or websites that were linked on Facebook, is really the only source his mother ever relied on for her anti-vaccine information."
It looks like the article is targeting FB for the false information -- except for the sub-clause, "... or websites that were linked to Facebook..." I'm not anti-vaxx or pro Facebook but this has all the earmarks of somebody's witch hunt.
The point of this story is that people are unable to tell fact from fiction and fabrication. It's not about "wrong think" it's about believing bullshit and not being able to tell when you're fed bullshit.
People lack the ability to identify when they're being lied to. That in turn is mostly due to them having a crappy education level that doesn't even allow them to question what they're told because they have no information to rely on as a gauge to test new information. They have been taught by schools that put more emphasis on believing what an authority tells them, rote learning that leaves you completely unable to learn anything but what you are force fed and a system that rewards conformity rather than questioning.
So when they start "questioning", it usually takes the form of "The elites/illuminati/big pharma/boogeyman-du-jour have told me A, so I will instead blindly believe B instead because B must be true since it is the opposite of what (insert boogeyman here) says".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Most antivaxers are vaccinated. Their parents made them get vaccinated a long time ago. Given the age of the movement, there isn't a large overlap between people who are adults now and are also young enough to have not been vaccinated before the movement took off. So they aren't even harming themselves, they are harming their children.
There are a large number of those who depend on herd immunity without it being a choice (IE they're immunocompromised or allergic to the appropriate vaccines). It's kinda like saying drunk driving is a self-correcting problem because drunk drivers are more likely to be in accidents than sober drivers.
What right is being taken away here? The right to be wrong? The right to believe any bullshit no matter how insane? The right to be an utter moron that's easily convinced because he's too stupid to tell when he's being bullshitted?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It is not. Non-vaccinated people primarily harm others. Sure, they get sick themselves, but the main harm they do is that a) they infect people that cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons and b) most vaccinations are not 100% so they increase the risk to people that actually got vaccinated.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
>Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right.
Unfortunately there are many studies that show otherwise. There's a reason cult de-programmers use strong appeal to emotion instead of logic, you can't 'logic' someone out of something they didn't 'logic' themselves into to begin with.
For once, human nature serves humanity. The teen urge to rebel against their parents is remarkably constructive in the face of the rampant stupidity of the anti-vaxxers. Now all we need is for this guy to produce a Vaccination Challenge video and stick it on Youtube and ten thousand teens will sneak behind their parents' backs to seek out a medical professional.
You can't make this shit up.
I don't really care what's happening as long as it's detrimental to Facebook.
#DeleteFacebook
Because the idiots then seek medical aid for preventable diseases and I get to foot the bill.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What do Anti-vaxers, flat earthers, Anti-gmo crusaders, and a certain branch of one of our main political parties all have in common? They get their information from Facebook.
All of these movements predate Facebook, sometimes by centuries.
There was strong resistance to smallpox inoculation in Britain, that was only somewhat reduced when the children of the royal family were inoculated in 1722.
Throughout the 19th century, there was religious opposition to vaccinations, and resistance to vaccinations today is strongest in muslim countries such as Pakistan where Facebook is not so pervasive.
The anti-GMO movement started in the 1990s, long before social media became common. Facebook was started in 2004.
Believe it or not, political extremism also predates Facebook. Seriously.
Facebook doesn't stop vaccinations, parents do.
There's just no other option really.
they also can lead to people who are allergic to vaccines, or otherwise cannot be vaccinated, to be infected with these controllable diseases?
It may seem heartless, but from a Darwinian perspective, this is also a self correcting problem.
I think the big point that Facebook which is a popular widely used source (much like broadcast TV a generation ago) is being used to tout misinformation, which people who have such views, can more widely get a hold of and strengthen their resolve, even if they are fully in the wrong.
The problem is that too many people are getting news from Facebook, and a lot of it very fake and dangerous. (Like, yelling fire in an auditorium type of dangerous which could be outside of First Amendment Speech ) And Facebook still hasn't done much to fix this.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The Right of stupid people to say what they like? Yeah, I think that that fits. Note that once you've decided that stopping stupid people from saying whatever they like, it's pretty easy to expand the definition (gradually, mind you!) of "stupid people" till the government is restricting anything they don't want to hear in public.
And remember, you may agree with the gov at first, but sooner or later, their definition of "stupid people saying the wrong thing(s) in public" will include things YOU want to say in public....
No, I'm not anti-vax. I wish that measles had been available when *I* was an infant. Alas, I was four or five before it was developed, much less available to the general public, much less mandatory.
Nor am I pro-stupid-people. I am, however, rather fond of the First Amendment. And restricting speech I disagree with isn't one of the exceptions listed in the First....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The right to contribute to both your children's and society's collective vulnerability to potentially deadly disease outbreaks?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Exactly why you don't bring your own research to your doctor, he took decades to be wrong, you took months to be right.
It's telling that you think "the right to be wrong" is absurd and worthy of mockery. Only someone on the wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger effect could make a statement like that.
If you don't vax your kids than you shouldn't be allowed around other people. You guys benefit from herd mentality. So when one of you guys get chicken pox, it spreads to other anti Vaxers. There a currently outbreaks cropping up again because of this stupid anti vaccine movement.
Home of the airheaded Jesus freaks and a corral for the lowest common denominator.
FaceBook + Instagram = FBI
Foolish Advice Center Easily Baffles Obscenely Oblivious Kooks
What I don't understand is how so many people in the pro-vaccine camp lose their goddamn minds over the incredibly tiny risk to people who can't get vaccinated. We're talking about an incredibly small number of people,
That's not how it works. Most vaccines aren't 100% effective. However, if almost all of the population is vaccinated, an outbreak is still unlikely to obtain critical mass to spread even if the vaccine is only, for example, 80% effective.
However, if a bunch of people refuse to vaccinate, then it can add enough susceptible people to get critical mass for an widespread outbreak. In this example, that could cause harm to the 20% of the population that vaccine failed to fully protect.
You arguing that being right is no substitute for being a good debater. I agree. But it's still loads easier when you're actually right. Much like it's easier to keep your story straight when you're telling the truth.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Fuck the marketplace of ideas. If that concept had any merit, why is this the state of affairs in the Western world after practicing it for so many decades? Actually being right does not do much to convince the Average Joe that you're right, especially after they've sought out and indoctrinated themselves with beliefs that are wrong. We have disproved the marketplace of ideas through experiment, and our reality is the aftermath.
We need to use our freedoms to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public rather than continuing to wait for the marketplace of ideas' invisible hand to lead people to the truth while it merely points out rabbit-holes to madness for vulnerable people to gleefully leap into. Call it corporate censorship if you like, but the alternatives are common carrier status or forced speech. Choose one.
It's also strange for someone who expresses such worry about corporate censorship to be so gung-ho about corporate and government propaganda campaigns.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Internet Red Scare was too partisan, and not enough people bought it. Now anti-vax is going to be used as the pretext for massive, automated censorship. Never trust anyone that says they're going to fight misinformation.
That is exactly the right being discussed. It's a fundamentally important right, because almost every statement we now consider correct was popularly considered batshit at some point, and vice versa. The world has certain immutable, objective truths, but it's ridiculous to think humans could ever know them with certainty.
... is like a dog walking on its hind legs. You can train him to do it, but it will never come naturally.
People are social animals; prisoners who are put in solitary confinement for extended periods come out with serious psychological disturbances, even if you do nothing more inhumane than make them sit by themselves for months. In a less extreme version of this, it will always feel uncomfortable to hold an opinion without supporters, even if you know you're right. On the flip side it's all too easy to go along with apparently popular ideas you disagree with. Eventually you'll believe those ideas.
Don't get me wrong. Groupthink is mankind's killer evolutionary advantage. If you disagree with *everyone* around you, chances are you're wrong, although of course that varies depending on you and the people around you. But social media is unlike anything humans have ever experienced before. If you designed an operant conditioning experiment with the aim of producing group think on an unprecedentedly vast, society-wide scale, social media is exactly what you'd end up with.
It's like sugar. Favoring sweet foods is good for you if you're a member of a small band of hunter-gatherers. A sweet tooth is not so good for you if you live in a society that boasts a sugar industry. A bias toward consensus is good for you if you're human living in a small group. It's bad for you if you live in a society with a groupthink industry.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What I don't understand is how so many people in the pro-vaccine camp lose their goddamn minds over the incredibly tiny risk to people who can't get vaccinated.
I'm in the "pro-vaccine camp." I don't lose my goddamn mind over the issue you've cited - I lose my goddamn mind over two other things:
1) The fact that parents who don't vaccinate their kids are putting their own little kids at risk of unnecessary suffering. I know a lot of Slashdotters would say "Let them suffer" as if its the kids' fault for having stupid parents. However, I suspect the Slashdotters who say that either aren't parents or lack empathy - And have never spent a wakeful night or two dealing with an ill, suffering kid, powerless to do anything. I'm in my early 50s. When I was a kid there was no Chicken Pox vaccine. I still remember, 40+ years later, the terrible suffering my brother went through when he suffered from the pox, and the stress it put on my parents. So I lose my goddamn mind over potential child suffering when people choose to not vaccinate for things like chicken pox.
2) The fact that, while my kids are vaccinated, the fact is that vaccines are not 100% effective on all biochemistries means that disease prevention also depends on herd immunity. If there are kids in my kids' classroom that aren't vaccinated, then they in turn are putting my kids at risk, even though my kids are vaccinated - Because the vaccine my kids took might not be effective with them.
they also can lead to people who are allergic to vaccines, or otherwise cannot be vaccinated, to be infected with these controllable diseases?
It may seem heartless, but from a Darwinian perspective, this is also a self correcting problem.
I suppose so, slowly killing off the population that cannot be vaccinated? Though I question the value of Darwin in modern days. A person's contribution to the future is not always in genes these days but in knowledge added to humanity. Of course it can be argued this is also weakening the gene pool. I guess only the future will tell what is the right perspective.
The real issue that we allow parents to override medical professionals and scientists. Unless you can demonstrate, with valid medical testing, that your children is allergic to, or would have medical complications, from a vaccine, you should not be allowed to reject a vaccine.
"We need to use our freedoms to limit our freedoms." You're a fascist.
Ah, the good old Nihilism argument. Because there's no absolute truth, everything is an opinion and the end. And all opinions are equally valid.
However, some opinions have resulted in us being able to converse about this nonsense over the internet at about the speed of light, while half a planet may be between us.
Don't you think these are a bit more desirable than those opinions that, to use one other extreme as an example, caused genocides?
This is correct. The teachings about the UFO hiding in Halley's Comet's tail waiting for us to kill ourselves so we can hop on board is every bit as factual and reality-based as, say, giving up your bus seat to an elderly person to be polite.
Funny, the ownership class uses their freedoms to limit our freedoms and nobody has ever accused them of being fascists. Let's admit that "freedom" by itself is a word that's vague to the point of uselessness and be more specific:
Let's exercise our civil liberties and private property rights a way to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public rather than to perpetuate their debate in the mistaken belief that it might achieve the same end.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
FB has not been around 18 years.
If that concept had any merit, why is this the state of affairs in the Western world after practicing it for so many decades?
Quality of life seems to track directly with amount of freedom of speech, so I'm not sure what you're going on about?
I think you're upset that what makes most people happy isn't what makes you happy, and you want to force everyone else to change. Thing about dictatorships: you don't get to be the dictator. So what alternative do you propose? An autocratic system where you're banned from arguing against any position taken by the autocracy? You do realize those won't be positions that you like, right?
We need to use our freedoms to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public
That didn't work out so well for the people when Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did it. Do you imagine it will be your ideas the next time around? Sorry, hate to break it to you, that's not how any of this works.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I forgot that Slashdot cuts off long titles on mobile. :/
That was supposed to read "...people who think Facebook needs to fix it are evil."
You get your kids initial vaccinations when they're babies... Facebook wasn't around when she made this decision... and in it's early years it wasn't really a place where people got their news from...
Fuck the marketplace of ideas
That truly is rich!
What the f**k do you think you're doing right now, posting to a /. comments thread? Yep, that's right. Participating in the marketplace of ideas...
Irony much?
Accountability is the key here, I think...
It shows how stupid kids below 25 years are....
Facebook was founded in 2004. Even if she signed up as soon as anyone was able too, her 18 year old son would already be 4 years old at that time, and would have already missed a boatload of early childhood vaccinations. Facebook's echo chamber undoubtedly reinforced her misguided beliefs that vaccines are dangerous, but they are not the source of them.
The "marketplace of ideas" does not equal free speech, they're different things. The "marketplace of ideas" is the concept that it's beneficial (or at least harmless) to expose the public to a debate of terrible ideas and falsehoods. "Invite the nazi to speak at the college, we'll curb-stomp him with facts and reason and show everyone how wrong his ideas are, thus making the audience less supportive of nazi ideas" - that's the "marketplace of ideas."
I don't propose any government censorship, I propose that we realize that debating these ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and that citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue, forcing them into smaller and more obscure venues where less people would be exposed to them. Don't let the nazi speak at your college, don't allow anti-vax content on your social media platform, etc.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
censorship. Its a preamble to "lets block content to anything we don't want you to see". This group is insane, we have to censor them or they will brainwash millions. Its total bullshit. Only stupid people are susceptible. Censorship is a slippery slope. Once you justify one exception, the next will follow. After a handful of exceptions, the rate at which they arrive will be exponential. The very first exception was the fire in a crowded theater ruling. The time between exceptions being made get reduced each time. Its already happening in the loose way they define hate speech, which turns out to only be hate speech spoken by a far-right group, far left groups get free passes for the exact same rhetoric, for now. Anything someone doesn't agree with is instantly labeled hate speech. Don't like the idea of a guy pretending to be transgende, 'identifies' with women, and gets to use the bathroom to spy on your teenage daughter? hate speech the second you voice a concern. Its not like you stood up and rally a bunch of people to go hang a bunch of transgenders (which really would be hate speech). Mere the idea of disagreeing with anything 'politically correct' is now defined as hate speech and worthy of censorship. What happens when the PC comes for your porn? Don't bother to speak out against porn censorship, you'll be labeled a hate-speech loon and shut down instantly. This is a very dangerous genie to let out of a bottle.
You dont have to shut down the speech. Schools already refuse admission without proof of vaccination. Problem solved. Either home school your kid in a bubble or get him vaccinated.
Don't get me wrong -- I have nothing against vaccinations (my kids got all of theirs except for chickenpox, but I don't really want to go into that right now). But this kind of thing irks me.
If I had refused to not vaccinate my kids and they decided to go against me at 18, that's kind of their prerogative. They should do it. And if we had arguments about it, it would just be a family thing.
But now everything is high-drama. A child goes against his parents and.... he's asked to testify? Seriously?
In today's age of Social Media and instant celebrity, does everything need to be done in public? Or maybe, just maybe, we have a world that is increasingly populated by drama whores?
At least when my kids decide to virtue signal -- which they do often, 'cause modern life -- they don't feel they have to do it before congress. Seriously, this is some self-important, self-satisfied kid who is what? Saving the world?
The kid really isn't adding anything to the conversation. Just virtue signaling out the whazoo as far as I can tell.
Seriously. If you want to get a vaccination and disagree with your folks about it, just do it. Don't (literally) make a Federal case about it.
I frequently accuse them of being fascists. Nobody wants to hear the truth if it would mean they have to risk their lives to fix the problem.
Getting vaccinated doesn't guarantee a protective titer, if too many people opt out it will lose societal level effectiveness.
in order to do that you would also have to homeschool your child. Daycares and schools are not allowed to accept non-vaccinated students. So the risk is fairly mitigated without having to suppress free speech.
Lawsuits and concerns about Russian trolling to sway elections are causing pressure to curate the postings. Won't this coincidentally end the safe harbor provisions for copyright violations, currently limited to DMCA takedowns in a timely manner?
For if they filter, they can filter for copyright, and thus can be sued immediately because now they are a publisher?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Participating in it? Not intentionally. It certainly doesn't mean I support the concept. Learn what it means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.
That central tenet is demonstrably false. We would not live in a world of viral fake news and large subcultures who believe in clear falsehoods if it were true. Exposing the public to falsehoods for the purpose of debate was not harmless or, on balance, beneficial.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It is interesting. If this is a common pattern (and I think it is), that means Facebook is the best place for an education campaign. This is a democracy with free speech (more or less) and we're not meant to solve problems of ignorance through government force or corporate censorship, but by winning in the marketplace of ideas.
Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right. The budget needed to drown Facebook in pro-Vax truth is tiny by government standards, especially if Facebook decides to give some free "air time" to the cause.
That' a nice idea but there is a body of research that shows exposing people to counter arguments, however factual, just hardens their viewpoint rather than changing it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...
https://www.scientificamerican...
They also tend to change the argument to avoid facing inconvenient facts.
https://www.scientificamerican...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Much like it's easier to keep your story straight when you're telling the truth.
At the amateur level, maybe. A well-thought-out and practiced lie, however, can easier to keep straight than the truth. Reality tends to be messy, and when people aren't deliberately trying to keep their story straight the details tend to get blurred. Stories that fit together unusually well often contain a fair bit of fiction—either deliberate deception or simple subconscious editing and rationalization.
It does help to have solid evidence on your side, if the people you're trying to convince are the type to be persuaded by the evidence. If not, your skills as a debater will matter far more than whether you're right or wrong.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
there is some truth to that. Imagine this going on 30 years ago. Anyone suggesting butter was OK and margarine wasnt could face censorship and public humiliation. Don't even get me started on eggs. 5 times the government changed their stances on eggs. Milk? Remember 'Milk, it does the body good' or 'Got milk?' Now we know that Holstein cows have an enzyme the suppresses the burning of fat. This whole shit started over climate change. Someone decided it was OK to deny voices to anyone offering a scientific alternative postulate to climate change. Once it was seen as socially acceptable to violate the very principle science is founded on, well the door was left open for every other venue. Just rince-and-repeat. Now I hear it about youtube channels that teach firearms safety, I hear it about anti vaxxers, I hear it about that jones guy that ran infowars, every time I turn around its another group that needs to be silenced.
It would only be fairly mitigated if homeschooling meant keeping non-vaccinated children quarantined from society, which it doesn't.
And how did free speech get into this? There's been no talk of governments criminalizing anti-vaccine speech.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The "marketplace of ideas" does not equal free speech, they're different things.
I don't see the difference.
. The "marketplace of ideas" is the concept that it's beneficial (or at least harmless) to expose the public to a debate of terrible ideas and falsehoods. "Invite the nazi to speak at the college, we'll curb-stomp him with facts and reason and show everyone how wrong his ideas are, thus making the audience less supportive of nazi ideas" - that's the "marketplace of ideas."
Sounds like free speech. The alternative is "not free speech". Especially in modern times, when almost everyone is a "Nazi", at least by social media standards.
Don't let the nazi speak at your college,
Everyone you disagree with is a "Nazi" these days, so you're saying "don't let people you disagree with speak at a government-funded school. I don't see any daylight between that and government censorship.
don't allow anti-vax content on your social media platform, etc.
Censorship by effective monopolies that dominate public debate is nearly as bad as censorship by governments. Anyway, since when are "forbidden ideas" less attractive? I don't think the human mind works that way.
Debunk the bunk. Especially, do so in a way that kids of anti-vax parents get the full story.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What do Anti-vaxers, flat earthers, Anti-gmo crusaders, and a certain branch of one of our main political parties all have in common? They get their information from Facebook.
All of these movements predate Facebook, sometimes by centuries.
There was strong resistance to smallpox inoculation in Britain, that was only somewhat reduced when the children of the royal family were inoculated in 1722.
Throughout the 19th century, there was religious opposition to vaccinations, and resistance to vaccinations today is strongest in muslim countries such as Pakistan where Facebook is not so pervasive.
The anti-GMO movement started in the 1990s, long before social media became common. Facebook was started in 2004.
Believe it or not, political extremism also predates Facebook. Seriously.
Just because there were crazy people before FB doesn't mean that FB doesn't exacerbate the problem.
Don't worry too much about changing the minds of specific individuals. Instead, think about the drift of ideas between generations (the old definition of "memes" pre-2000). That is where the difference is made. You can't e.g. convince someone not to be racist, but you can change the statistical likelyhood of their kids being racist.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The Right of stupid people to say what they like? Yeah, I think that that fits. Note that once you've decided that stopping stupid people from saying whatever they like, it's pretty easy to expand the definition (gradually, mind you!) of "stupid people" till the government is restricting anything they don't want to hear in public.
And remember, you may agree with the gov at first, but sooner or later, their definition of "stupid people saying the wrong thing(s) in public" will include things YOU want to say in public....
No, I'm not anti-vax. I wish that measles had been available when *I* was an infant. Alas, I was four or five before it was developed, much less available to the general public, much less mandatory.
Nor am I pro-stupid-people. I am, however, rather fond of the First Amendment. And restricting speech I disagree with isn't one of the exceptions listed in the First....
However restricting speech that represents a clear and present danger has never been part of the first amendment... though I'm not about to claim to be smart (dumb?) enough to try to apply that outside of the most blindingly obvious examples.
I'm 100% in favor of stupid people spreading medically dangerous misinformation being able to say whatever they want. I'm also 100% in favor of them being shut up after they've said it.
for stupid.
People are going to pick and choose their sources to support their views.
The problem is that Facebook does this automatically. With the automation that Facebook provides of "you might be interested in", it creates a situation where your current beliefs are magnified through only presenting you with things you'll already agree with.
30 years ago, this was MUCH harder. There were only a few news sources available. You could watch Network TV, your local yocals, or the the local newspapers. None of these news sources published crap like anti-vaxxer conspiracies. To be sure, there were certainly weird conspiracy theories and baloney around 40 years ago, but it wasn't nearly as widespread and mainstream as it is today.
If you take a look at the anti-vax groups you will see that they are much more active in supressing free speech. Any voices of dissent, anyone spreading actual reason and evidence is quickly expelled from their groups.
Telling the truth doesn't innately make you right. If a schizophrenic tells the tale of their alien abduction they may well be telling the truth as they see it. Also, an attention seeking liar could tell the tale of their abduction while an alien zips overhead unseen.
If you are a good debater you'll have learned that the issues where it is possible to be entirely right are rarely debated in the first place and the best strategy for dealing with subpoints of your opponents argument of that sort is usually to concede them instantly. What makes being right so hard is that there is rarely a complex issue without several of these objective and definitely right sub-issues that conflict with the arguments of both sides and it is usually only an inability to remember those details (or masking them via bias) that lets a rational thinking person to fall to one side or other when all sides are argued well.
Kid goes against his mom's wishes, congress investigates.
What?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
The problem is that these crackpot (and racist for that matter) groups seem to be growing more prevalent thanks to the internet.
The right of self determination - the right to decide for yourself what you do with your body and your life. In other words, the fundamental right that is the basis for democracy. The entire premise of democracy is that people will on average make the right decision. So if you let them freely choose what they want to do, most of the time it turns out right. Concede that right, and you're basically admitting that the fascists are sometimes right.
That's why the correct solution to this problem is education. Teach people how to think critically and make rational decisions. Then the problem solves itself - people view stuff they read on Facebook with a skeptical eye, research both sides, and decide for themselves that the anti-vaxxers are full of $#!t. As a bonus, it doesn't just fix the anti-vaxx problem, it fixes a host of other problems.
Unfortunately, educating people is a lot harder than banning speech, or making vaccinations mandatory, or otherwise infringing people's rights. So people who want a quick and dirty solution but don't really think about the long-term consequences of their decisions, tend to favor these right-infringing methods. (The people who want to be fascists and dictators also favor them, though they try to keep their true motivations secret.) Think about it - making vaccination mandatory is basically giving the state the power to inject the entire population with whatever substance it deems necessary. Just about every dystopian sci-fi story ever written has warned us against exactly that. But sugar-coat it with public health and put idiot anti-vaxxers on the opposing side, and suddenly people are tripping over themselves to give the state exactly that power. To me, that's a bigger travesty than the anti-vaxxer movement.
"Reality tends to be messy, and when people aren't deliberately trying to keep their story straight the details tend to get blurred."
Which of course will also be useful for a practiced liar. An inexperienced liar will be trying to keep every detail straight and terrified is something contradictory creeps in. An master liar will ride the chaos because they know it is present all over the place when people are telling the truth as well.
Don't worry too much about changing the minds of specific individuals. Instead, think about the drift of ideas between generations (the old definition of "memes" pre-2000). That is where the difference is made. You can't e.g. convince someone not to be racist, but you can change the statistical likelyhood of their kids being racist.
Good points.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"Free speech" means "you're free to say anything without being charged with a crime." And there are limits to that even in the US - incitements to violence, for example. Very different from the "marketplace of ideas" concept which has nothing to do with criminality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Everyone you disagree with is a "Nazi" these days, so you're saying "don't let people you disagree with speak at a government-funded school. I don't see any daylight between that and government censorship.
It may amount to government censorship at a public school. However most colleges are privately funded so there's no issue.
Censorship by effective monopolies that dominate public debate is nearly as bad as censorship by governments.
Nearly as bad in your opinion, but legally worlds apart. Again, the alternatives are enforced common carrier status and forced speech. Choose.
Anyway, since when are "forbidden ideas" less attractive? I don't think the human mind works that way.
Doesn't matter how attractive they are if they're highly elusive and largely unknown. Pushing ideas underground works.
Debunk the bunk. Especially, do so in a way that kids of anti-vax parents get the full story.
This is what the Western world's been doing for much of the late 20th century, and as you can see the bunk has been winning. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Awesome! I can't wait to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. When the police come to arrest me, I'll tell them that Nuh-uh! Drethon said I have Free Speech!!!
Rawhide “Incident at Red River Station” (1960) – Gil and Rowdy get exposed to smallpox and leave the herd to find a vaccine. They instead find a town that believes in Asafoetida bags, leeches and herbal tea, pushing the real doctor out of town to care for patients in a pest house. “There are very few people around here who believe in vaccination,” says Dr. Flood, at least until people start dying of smallpox and they line up for the batch of vaccine he makes from the cowpox of a nearby herd.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
I really *want* to agree with you, because it seems reasonable. We know that Nazis are bad, and we know that anti-vax is wrong. We know that because we've studied the effects of both and they're undesirable.
We also know that exposing people to these concepts will cause them to be sympathetic to them, although I we don't fully understand the scale. In the US, exposing people to Nazi propaganda seems to create a ~9% supportive effect[1], while in Germany in the 20s and 30s it was far higher. The truth is, if you or I were a student in Germany in the 30s, we'd almost certainly be Nazis.
The problem with suppressing wrong/hate speech is that the same argument could be made about Galileo in the 1600s or US racism in the 60s. Let me "quote" you: "Don't let the black man speak at your college, don't allow black content on your social media platform, etc. Letting them debate ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue."
We would be much better off if only correct arguments can be platformed, so that weak people aren't swayed by incorrect arguments. Unfortunately, we don't have a way of perfectly identifying "correct" arguments. Even if we could, "correct" changes over time, as people and cultures change. Life is complex and complicated enough that anyone who thinks they "know with certainty" anything about any complex topic is kidding themselves. If you restrict speech based on what you "know" is right, you will get it wrong some of the time. Furthermore, evil people will come along and use those restrictions as a weapon to create further oppression. History shows us that.
If we seek truth and a better life for all, the best way I've found is to allow people to speak freely, debate, argue, and pick at truth. It's messy and often has horrible outcomes. It causes Measles outbreaks. It allows Nazis to march and alienate people. It allows speech that is utterly hateful to homosexuals and racial groups. It allows speech that marginalizes people of less common attributes (appearance, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc). But I'll take all of those downsides in a heartbeat if the alternative is oppression, exploitation, and dictatorships.[2]
I strongly recommend you read "The Gulag Archipelago" from Solzhenitsyn.
Sources:
[1] https://www.elitedaily.com/new...
[2] https://stanfordfreedomproject...
-=Lothsahn=-
Let's take measles as an example. Measles is so contagious that in order for herd immunity to be effective, at least 95% of the population needs to be immune. Now consider that the measles vaccine currently in use is 98% effective. So what percentage of the population needs to be given the vaccine in order to get to that 95% immune level? If you do the math, at least 97% of the population needs to be given the vaccine. Now consider that there are some people who should NOT receive the measles vaccine due to legitimate medical conditions such as severe allergic reaction to neomycin, compromised immune system, etc. The best thing for those people is to be covered via herd immunity and they can legitimately be part of the 3% of the population who do not need to receive the vaccine. And these anti-vaccine idiots effectively eliminate the effectiveness of herd immunity. To illustrate. A 2015 study indicates that for the measles vaccine, 9% of the American population believe it should not be given to their children.... 9% people. Now contemplate that 9% and see if there's some way using the above figures to get the immune population up to 95%.
This confirms what I've known all along. This whole thing is a ruse to try to make Facebook civilliy liable for the outcome of failure to vaccinate.
I predict the first measles lawsuit against FB will be filed within days.
You have not chosen peer-reviewed journals to support your (likely false ) contention. Why not? Because most careful studies show prudent discussion of a factual position wins over bad-faith, falsified arguments.
Where, exactly? There are several States that allow exemptions from vaccination for "personal reasons" or "religious belief". Those States allow unvaccinated children to attend public school.
The most aggressive States in requiring vaccination are, I believe, Mississippi and West Virginia. The only exemptions accepted are from a medical doctor who testifies that the child is allergic to the vaccine itself.
Mississippi ran a campaign for medical professionals called "If you get 'em, stick 'em." to encourage universal vaccination.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
We need to use our freedoms to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public rather than continuing to wait for the marketplace of ideas' invisible hand to lead people to the truth while it merely points out rabbit-holes to madness for vulnerable people to gleefully leap into.
Hear hear! May I suggest we begin by reducing your ability to spread the very message you just espoused? It is, after all, both factually wrong and morally toxic.
In reality I would never actually advocate for your censorship. I am merely demonstrating the dangers of your way of thinking.
It isn't just another group, it is a certain perspective which needs silencing.
Person A makes outlandish and fully racist antisemitic comments, repeatedly, and they are not rebuked in any way.
Person B wears a Red Hat and they need to have calls for their face to be bashed in, DOXed, and more.
Silencing seems to be only one way.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
My mom, rest her soul, was an anti-vaxxer (and a research Nurse no less). Facebook would let her spread that nonsense. It would give her a safe space to discuss it and get it reinforced.
Reinforcement's the big thing. My bro and I were just talking about the Dem primary. Based on his news feeds Kamala Harris is the front runner. Based on mine it's Bernie and Harris is dead in the water. The two of us had to do a mess of googling to get out of our bubbles.
That's because services like YouTube and Facebook are built to keep funneling content to you that your receptive of so they can get more "engagement" (e.g. eye on glass) and more ad impressions. It's real time and designed around sessions. Click a Bernie video and your feed blows up with Bernie. Click a gaming video and suddenly it's gaming. Whatever it takes to keep you clicking one more video.
True story, YouTube decided a buddy was trans. Apparently several of the Warhammer 40k players and painters he subscribed to were, and they'd done videos about the Trans issues they were facing on their 40k channels. I guess that's one way to get out of the Bubble. But baring that you really have to try to step out of it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Slashdot, as a private platform, should be free to ban my anti-marketplace-of-ideas speech if they wish - legally they're free to do so. It's only a problem if a government bans that speech.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Awesome! I can't wait to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. When the police come to arrest me, I'll tell them that Nuh-uh! Drethon said I have Free Speech!!!
Hmm, didn't think I had to be explicit that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater was one of the blindingly obvious examples I was referring to.
The problem with suppressing wrong/hate speech is that the same argument could be made about Galileo in the 1600s or US racism in the 60s. Let me "quote" you: "Don't let the black man speak at your college, don't allow black content on your social media platform, etc. Letting them debate ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue."
A good point. And here's where the closest thing to a true "marketplace of ideas" comes into play: The "correct" position can organically win a long uphill battle, but "wrong" ones can only win if a complacent populace lets them. Civil rights leaders in the '60s were in fact widely "de-platformed," even if that's not what it was called back then, and they eventually won anyway. The entire arc of the moral universe toward justice had to be forcefully gouged through every obstacle you can imagine, but it wasn't stopped. Therefore we shouldn't be afraid to de-platform ideas that we can reasonably agree are "wrong."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Stop using the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" argument
I saw this kid speaking on the news last night, and it's great that he's made up his own mind about what he wants to do with his body. And yes, it's also true that it's rather sad to hear that his mom chose to use Facebook as her SOLE source of information gathering to come to HER conclusions about the merits/disadvantages of vaccinations.
But this whole debate seems to me like it involves a lot of polarization that's uncalled for.
The vast majority of people I talk to are "tentatively for" government mandated vaccinations. That means, they're not just against vaccinations on the whole. They got their own kids immunized for all of the usual childhood diseases. BUT, they also get that it sets a dangerous precedent to let one's government dictate that you MUST put a substance in your body, any time they say so. And really, there's no reason to blindly assume that any NEW vaccines that come along will be as safe or effective to receive as the tried and true ones we've been collectively receiving for decades.
I grasp the argument that failure to get vaccinated against a terrible thing like polio or rubella starts risking the safety and health of others, due to herd immunity -- and that's why it's not JUST about what you want to do with your own body. But that doesn't necessarily stand when the vaccines are for things like genital warts or even common strains of the flu. What happens if a dozen new vaccines are developed for other diseases, but we discover the human body can't create immunity for all of those things and maintain it at one time? If government DEMANDS you get all those vaccines, but the last one you get overloads your system so a couple of other vaccines you got become ineffective -- THAT could cause you to contract measles or polio or what-not!
Check the history to get an idea.
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/graph-us-measles-cases
Before vaccination, measles used to infect 700,000 people per year, just in the United States. Combined, diseases that are now preventable by vaccination used to infect millions, and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands worldwide.
This type of information doesn't seem to survive from generation to generation. My grandparents knew people who died from diseases like measles, rubella, small pox, polio, etc. I don't, because widespread vaccinations have all but eliminated these diseases. People no longer come face-to-face with the horror of their young children dying regularly, so they forget.
The math is so small exactly because people were forcibly injected with a foreign substance in the past. Or, faced with the horrors of preventable deaths, gladly lined up.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Nor am I pro-stupid-people. I am, however, rather fond of the First Amendment. And restricting speech I disagree with isn't one of the exceptions listed in the First....
The problem is that the stupid people are more vocal than the normal people so over time they are able to convince more people join their side.
Universal law is for lackeys. Context is for kings. Any rules should have exceptions, although no one can agree on who gets to make the exceptions.
If only people are as adamant in promoting scientific education as they are in defending the First Amendment.
I don't propose any government censorship, I propose that we realize that debating these ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic
You heard the 1980's portable gaming machine! Debating "dangerous" ideas could spread them to people not swayed by logic. So I say we follow their advice and... completely ignore them.
In case it wasn't clear, I am saying that GameboyRMH is espousing one such dangerous idea, and that by their own logic we should refuse to grant them the attention they require.
You have not chosen peer-reviewed journals to support your (likely false ) contention. Why not? Because most careful studies show prudent discussion of a factual position wins over bad-faith, falsified arguments.
Cite?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The problem is that these crackpot (and racist for that matter) groups seem to be growing more prevalent thanks to the internet.
The key word (highlighted by me) is "seem". The Internet makes crackpots (and racists for that matter) more visible. But there is little reason to believe they are actually more prevalent, and plenty of reason to believe they are not.
If you think racism is worse today than in the past, you should read some history books. Or go to YouTube and watch some documentaries. You will be shocked.
Insert your villian here: Terrorists, Child molesters, Gun Owners, Anti Vaxers, Russian bots, Hate speech....
Or to some the favorite villains could be: minorities moving to my neighborhood, minorities wanting to vote, gays wanting to get married, people choosing the wrong religion, all reasons to motivate some to try and restrict rights.
One day my mother is saying how we must protect the freedom of religion and get rid of government intrusion. The next day we drive past a mosque and she says "that shouldn't be allowed". The human brain is perfectly capable of believing in to contrary ideas simultaneously. Freedom for me, but restrictions for you!
Nobody's being "suppressed". Stupid people are being called out for being stupid. That's not "suppression" in any way, shape, or form. This kind of discussion is exactly what the First Amendment was for.
I don't respond to AC's.
Parents had their mind made up before his first shot was suppose to happen and before facebook
The "marketplace of ideas" does not equal free speech, they're different things.
The "marketplace of ideas" is an argument for free speech.
When you argue against an argument for free speech, you are effectively arguing against free speech.
The "marketplace of ideas" is the concept that it's beneficial (or at least harmless) to expose the public to a debate of terrible ideas and falsehoods.
10 seconds on wiki:
"The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population."
"Marketplace of ideas" is arguing is that by allowing free speech, the truth and good ideas will eventually triumph
I don't propose any government censorship
No, you do propose private censorship. Freedom of speech is an idea that goes beyond what government can or cannot do. Government censorship is usually worse than private censorship, but that doesn't somehow magically make private censorship not censorship.
I propose that we realize that debating these ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic
So? You can argue the same about freedom of speech, or any other freedom, and argue that "vulnerable people" shouldn't have those freedoms. There will always be some people who misuse if not abuse freedom. The rest of the society who are reasonable people, capable of logic, should not be punished for that.
Don't let the nazi speak at your college
Um... it's not "your" college. I'm assuming you're talking about publicly funded colleges (if it's private schools, it's definitely not "your" college, as you don't sound like one of the ruling elites who own private schools and pretty much everything else in society). Public colleges are... public. You nor anyone else can dictate who the college invites or not. You have to actually argue and get the people/the college to agree with you... or in other words win in the marketplace of ideas
See, the irony here is that you want to argue against marketplace of ideas, but that very act itself is engaging in the marketplace of ideas.
That "incredibly small number" includes all children under ab out a year old, where measles is concerned. It also includes pretty much everybody over a certain age, too.
The guy's 18, Facebook has only existed for 15 years, and vaccinations start well before age 3.
His mother's been an idiot longer than Facebook has existed.
To the tune of 49,000 violent attacks on US citizens a year.
Boy that sounds bad. It's too bad you didn't provide enough context to actually evaluate the number. 'Cause our native-born population commits about 2 million "violent attacks" on US citizens a year. Also, that 2M statistic uses traditional definitions of "violent attacks", as opposed to property crimes that are included in your 49,000 statistic.
Meaning our native population causes violence at a higher rate than the immigrants you want to exclude.
So, when you say everyone should care about the violence of immigrants and ignore the actual rate of violence in the country, you demonstrate you don't really care about crime. You care about hurting brown people.
And to bring it back to the subject at hand, infectious diseases kill far more than 49,000 people per year, and death is a wee bit worse than the very loose definition of "violent" used to create that statistic.
So, when you constantly whine that people should care more about immigrants than deadly diseases, you don't really care about people dying. You care about feeding your racism.
Yes they predate Facebook but misinformation would spread slowly back then or be isolated to smaller areas. With Facebook it spreads like wild fire and in greater amounts. There is also greater amount of gullible people consuming this misinformation. This causes what we call a dumpster fire for society that gets bigger every year.
Facebook's algorithms feed anti-vaxx propaganda to parents, because they're designed to reinforce subjects you appear interested in.
So while Facebook didn't write the propaganda and the parents are the ones who fell for it, Facebook's delivery makes it far more likely parents will fall for it.
There's no particular reason Facebook has to send only anti-vaxx propaganda when you search for information about vaccines. Their algorithms could also choose to show you truthful articles or articles that debunk the propaganda.
with anti-vaxxers. There is real, definite harm. The FCC should step in and treat it as a false advertising issue. Cut it off at the head. Facebook is profiting from the anti-vaxxer movement by serving up adverts themselves.
Basically, through their algorithms spreading false information that is itself a product for Facebook. It should be regulated as such.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ah yet again, you asshats are losing and now all of a sudden you want to compromise and be open minded and whine about why we all can't get along. You conservatards are the bully crying uncle and pissing your panties because FINALLY we stood up and defended ourselves. I don't wanna fucking hear it. LAY IN THE BED YOU MADE ASSHOLE!
The hallmark of bad fiction are stories that fit together too well. As the master liar Garak put it, "I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences." It's also a large part of the reason why I think Garak's lying is being done more to toy with his friends than actually convince them of a fiction--he fundamentally lost a reason to tell convincing lies, so he's actually just practicing his lying to try to keep well adapted at it. I think the only thing worse than a liar with an agenda is someone with an agenda who believes lies as truth. That is why the anti-vax stuff is so depressing and why things like CPS should be more involved, if necessary.
Pro-Alpha?
Facts are still a good thing, but they're only one arrow in the quiver so to speak. You need to also engage people and get them thinking critically. Facts by themselves don't change people's minds because they have built up mental tools to work around them and preserve their world view.
Like most things, changing the minds of people who are wrong is complicated.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
All of the above. Then they move to more mainstream ideas not in line with the current political correctness. Eventually it is illegal to disagree with your rulers. They always start with extreme cases to start the process.
At 18 he is an adult, nothing to see here, carry on.
or does support for Anti-Vaxxers seem to come mostly from the right? When I see votes on vaccine legislation the anti-vaxxer stuff is normally coming from the GOP and the pro-vaccine laws from the Democrats (with some moderate GOPers crossing party lines).
I _think_ this is because the GOP has been willing to exploit the subculture around anti-vaccination to win some close races while the Dems and the left in general have not. I'd like to say the the left wing is also more pro-science, but I know anti-vaxxers who are otherwise left wing. That said, I know left wing anti-vaxxers who'll vote GOP on that one issue alone, and again, in a tight race they might turn elections...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Thank goodness no woman will ever want anything to do with you.
Male Feminist Incel, MFI
if "his mom's wishes" have a price (to her), we don't need to forbid anything... :P)
* wallets are the more sensible part of the human body (anyone with litle knowledge in anatomy knows that
To slowly put censorship in place on an issue.
Then the next issue can apply for censorship.
Later brands, ads, DRM, crypto, faith groups, political parties can all have their issues considered for the same level of control.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/faq/index.html
"For a vaccine company to receive all of the liability protections offered by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, the company must comply in all material respects with all applicable requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (including regulations issued under such provisions)."
Any injury caused to you by a vaccine must be settled through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the United States of America prior to the age of consent.
Afterwards I believe any vaccines taken at the age of 18 and categorized as an adult vaccine, you can sue the manufacture directly if you are injured.
The bigger question is - Do the vaccines that are created using cancer cells carry any residual risk? Plus the ingredients that are used as adjuvants, you think they are risk free? Especially on new born babies. heh
You didn't like me using that exact same argument concerning immigrants. You may not get their old ass parents to "assimilate" but their kids are as American as you or I and THOSE are the people we need.
Trolls, and Russians, and Retards, oh my.
But anti-vaxxers aren't refusing to take the vaccine - they are refusing to have it administered to someone else. There's no 'right to self determination' going on here, only the right of children to be treated as people and not property.
Society (properly) defers to parents in any case where harm is not immediately apparent. However, children are not owned, they are *entrusted* to their parents, and if the parents fail to provide, then society steps in. Then the standard is 'in the best interests of the child'.
Outside documented medical exceptions, vaccines are in the best interest of the child. Why should we let *anyone* prevent that?
Joe Bob gets a 0 rating for his posts anywhere. He has NOT been shown to be a liar.
Cindy Anti-Vax gets a -10 rating for her posts anywhere. She has been found to post links, stories, articles which disagree with the science.
FDA gets a +10 rating for their posts about drugs when they are based on facts and a -10 rating for their posts when they are political.
All unproven posts claiming to be factual, like Bible quotes, get rated 0.
Today, most politicians would have a -5 rating. Trump, -20.
Engines/AI/People performing the ratings also get rated. This is not a popularity contest. "likes" don't count.
And remember, you may agree with the gov at first, but sooner or later, their definition of "stupid people saying the wrong thing(s) in public" will include things YOU want to say in public....
Compare and contrast the treatment by law enforcement of Occupy Wall Street versus the Bundy takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, and various open carry marches versus black lives matter. Liberals already live on the dangerous side of that scenario. See also-marijuana is illegal specifically because it could be used as an excuse to beat up black people and hippies. Why else do you think there is such contempt when the evangelicals go on about how homosexuals should be torture-"therapied" into compliance while waving the first amendment banner?
The entire arc of the moral universe toward justice had to be forcefully gouged through every obstacle you can imagine, but it wasn't stopped. Therefore we shouldn't be afraid to de-platform ideas that we can reasonably agree are "wrong."
And for most of human history we did not have vaccines, therefore we shouldn't be afraid of a growing population of un-vaccinated people.
But since you seem to be arguing in favor of censoring the anti-vax, I suspect you would disagree with that idea.
You have to do no such thing. Every article and amendment in the constitution has exceptions and limitations. Some haven't been needed to be tested or litigated yet, like quartering soldiers, but they will be when the time arises. NO law in America is literal.
It can be argued that those people are also broken and need not reproduce.
That'd be great if it was what I trusted any of the involved parties to do. It's not what they're going to do. They're going to try to have bullshit regulations about "fact checking" and try to make platforms and the people who use them liable for some kind of damage or guilty of some kind of crime.
So why the moral panic?
Parents who are anti-vaccines will stop their offspring from getting vaccines, too.
one of our main political parties all have in common
Have you looked into the mirror and wondered "Am I the one being misinformed and lied to?". Sounds like you're in dire need for some introspection.
But this never exists as a complete absolute and it is harmful to dumb down that it has. People don't exist in isolation and a huge amount of what would constitute this freedom for one individual would restrict the freedoms or cause harm to others. The moment you accept that people aren't free to commit murder without consequence you are accepting that this freedom isn't absolute.
When your choice is between a world where people with immune deficiencies have to hide away because of the risk of catching a disease with a widely available vaccine that others are choosing not to take or requiring people who don't have the vaccine to stay away from society to make things safe for those more susceptible there is no option that satisfactorily gives complete freedom to all parties.
Facebook almost surely wasn't the source. It was the medium. We could also say the kids mother got all her information from one source: "the internet', then blame "the internet" for propagating anti-vax info. That would be wrong for the same reasons.
slashdot posts..
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
weak human psychology lead to this, facebook fake news is just a symptom of a larger problem I will term magical thinking. Or superstition.. or irrational thinking. or religion. All the same shit.
The implication of this "story" is
that we're going to f'n burn the quack doctors if they keep preying on the children.
Snake oil is for adults who are old enough to understand the choice.
The implication is that society is pissed off about this problem, and people are holding hearings to talk about who to blame. But make no mistake, this is not a slippery slope; society is ready to fight over the specific issue being discussed: Intentional transmission of preventable diseases. There is no hand-wavy abstract danger, this is the hill being fought over that we're already on and "eradicated" diseases have already returned; not by accident, but by willful actions of individuals who sought to profit from fear and ignorance.
The Right of stupid people to say what they like?
Wait, wait, you're accusing Facebook of having intentionally published this content because they believe it?
That's actually a rather serious accusation. And that is whose speech rights are implicated in hearings about misinformation on Facebook. Facebook.
Most of slashdot thinks they have a Right to have their Letters to the Editor published in the local newspaper, and that they're being oppressed and their frozen peaches were all stolen because their letter didn't get published.
if you don't like the word god, just replace it with the word natural. Natural Rights. If you don't think they exist i dare you to stand empty handed in a savanna.
You can. And, I strongly suggest you would benefit from looking up what that phrase actually means. And what the legal conclusion is.
"If you get 'em, stick 'em."
Maybe this whole problem could be solved with a bounty and a dart gun.
It is also one of the most stupid fallacies possible: Look over there, there is a problem that is worse! Stop dealing with this problem already!
Some people just do not have any rationality, just irrational fear and hate.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
How about this: I know that medical advice should come from real doctors, not quack doctors.
Maybe we shouldn't grant "safe harbor" provisions to reprinting medical opinions from non-doctors. Require publishers to take responsibility for only publishing medical information from people who are currently qualified to give medical advice.
The problem isn't people's individual Freedom, the problem is allowing specific types of unlicensed commercial activities to bypass the normal protections for those activities, because "it's on a computer." Without the parasites making money off of the fear and ignorance of parents, then it wouldn't be a problem; it would just be regular fringe rantings at the natural rate. It is only because it is a medical issue, and medical issues are important, that there is even a problem with it in the first place.
This is very similar to the fact that in most places no license is needed to fix a computer, but you need to be a special type of licensed doctor to do heart surgery. The specific activities present different dangers. And generally speaking, the right to give medical advice is already regulated.
there is a body of research that shows exposing people to counter arguments, however factual, just hardens their viewpoint rather than changing it.
It is almost as if what you need is a counter-conspiracy-theory that generates a new revelation about the old conspiracy without ever directly arguing with it.
Or even, the point could be that the children aren't the ones making the choice, but they're the ones the choice most directly affects.
Jesus wept.
This story basically says that Facebook is using mind control to create an army of zombie cultists who rely exclusively on them for social sustenance.
It is much worse than you realized.
--
#TheyLive
OR is anyone else not allowed to "[look] into the mirror and wondered "Am I the one being misinformed and lied to?"" and say "No, not me"? Because your rhetorical would imply that everyone is wrong all the time about everything, even when they are saying something different to before....
It's an abdication of reason by abuse of a homily. Look into that mirror yourself and you have just said "You are misinforming yourself to sound smart".
Pacific Bell, the Postal Service, and Highway 101 do not do a/b testing on you designed to trigger dopamine cycling. You would be better to compare it to a drug dealer, sports gambling house, or a casino. All of which are heavily regulated if not illegal because allowing them to be completely unregulated leads to wide spread social problems that the government has been repeatedly asked to fix in the past.
In fact, this "personal responsibility" type of thinking is essentially dead, when politician's kids started dying by 100,000 due to the Opiod epidemic. When 70 year old Republican lawmakers start treating drug addiction as a medical problem rather than saying lock-em-up, you know that society is changing how it views actors who exploit psychological bugs in the human brain, especially for profit actors.
underscored the importance of "credible" information.
https://youtu.be/g5vnZec964c?t...>Amen!
And why is that right being taken away, in your "mind"? To hear you, anyone correcting someone else *as you have just done here* is now removing that right. After all, if he's not allowed to be wrong and "take away the right of others to be wrong", then you're taking away their right to be wrong.
Folks,
Men within a certain age range can be drafted into the US military "at gunpoint" to fight and die for their country.
In order to defend our country from infectious diseases that have killed hundreds of millions, we need another MANDATORY civil service.
Namely, everyone must be vaccinated with just a few medical exceptions. This is what is necessary to defend our country. This is what we should expect and demand of our fellow Americans.
The End.
--PeterM
2019 - 18 = 2001. Facebook opened to the public in 2006. But don’t let me interrupt your narrative about the healthy 18 year old who testified before Congress yesterday.
The definition of social media: a group of people who can espouse, or appear to support, any point of view; can believe and adopt anyone else's point of view without supporting evidence; don't have to interact face-to-face with those with whom they agree or disagree; and don't have to take responsibility for their positions or statements.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Yeah, well... when the time comes to kick ass their ass, Facebook better hope there's enough bubblegum on the planet.
#DeleteFacebook
I remember doing a bit of research and finding that vaccination rates in may Latin American countries (everything south of the US, essentially) is higher than vaccination rates in the USA, at least for measles, which is what I found data on.
I suspect that claims that people from Latin America are a risk to USA disease wise are exaggerated and probably have more to do with racism than fact.
--PeterM
You raise a good point (probably by accident, but still...): For people to live in a group, they have to agree on limitations to certain rights. Your right to extend your arm ends at my nose. The right of anti-vaxxers to raise their children as they see fit ends when their children begin infecting other children with the diseases they didn't get vaccinated against. Has it escaped you that we have multiple measles outbreaks around the country now?
I'm sorry to say that even smart people fall prey to the mental traps of confirmation bias, groupthink (where they adopt the beliefs of their community correct or not), anchoring bias, and other mental fallacies.
You may define such people as morons, but I *almost* guarantee you, that you do the same in some areas where YOU have incorrect beliefs.
Not everyone has the time to put all their beliefs under a microscope and people use mental heuristics to come to quick conclusions that are unfortunately wrong, sometimes. Even really smart people.
Such as you, in simply defining people who have some incorrect beliefs as "morons". Just as with them, the truth is a bit more nuanced, but you just simplify it.
--PeterM
Hello,
To put a more optimistic spin upon human nature, let me repeat something I read:
What's really remarkable about people is not how much we fight and have conflict, but, by and large, how well we *get along*. There's pretty much no other animal on the planet that manages to live in big complex societies so well, and that's PRECISELY because "human nature" lets us get along in groups.
You could even argue that getting along in groups is more important to humanity's success than big brains or tools--though big brains certainly helps with getting along in groups--but isn't necessary (see ants and bees.)
--PeterM
Herd immunity is a real factor in vaccinations.
Those who refuse to vaccinate are, in a sense, betraying the rest of us in the war vs. merciless, pitiless, brutal enemies of all humans, namely, contagious diseases.
You could think of getting vaccinated as like registering for the US draft. It's part of the national defense. Arguably more important, in terms of casualties, than military service is.
Conscientious objectors to the draft are often made to serve in non-violent ways. Perhaps we should make "conscientious objectors" (if we allow this at all) to vaccination live in isolation from everyone else, on an island perhaps, where they can be quarantined.
--PeterM
Getting vaccinations is like registering for the draft. All eligible Americans ought to do both, it's our duty as Americans to help with the national defense.
And whomever thinks that fighting contagious diseases with the most effective tool available--namely widespread vaccinations, isn't part of the national defense is really, really wrong.
Getting vaccinations is nothing more or less than everyone's minimum contribution to the national defense--and should be seen that way.
--PeterM
Let's leave politics out of this. Politics is the absolute *worst* source of ignorant tribalism in this country.
And tribalism is EXACTLY what hardens a lot of people into insane positions such as refusing vaccinations.
They go with their TRIBE instead of with the FACTS.
So leave politics out, for the love of humanity and our hope of being FREE of infectious disease!
It's ironic that you're trying to prove this assertion with facts.
Good luck with that! And I mean that literally--I really wish you the best of luck, and I hope you succeed. I say the same thing as you to people when I can, might even use your links (thanks for those).
--PeterM
You know, there are news stories I've read that have found a correlation between increased autism rates and being near agricultural fields where insecticides are sprayed. I like pointing out these news stories I've read to people. (See below).
While I will concede that correlation doesn't prove causation, in the face of data contradicting other causes for autism, I find that exposure to known neurotoxins sort of plausible as a cause for autism, much more so than other soundly discredited theories.
I think the apparent correlation between autism and insecticide exposure warrants further study. How about you?
https://www.iflscience.com/hea...
--PeterM
Regardless of your views on vaccination, Facebook did not exist for the first five or six odd years of this childs life. He claims to have been completely unvaccinated. This is not something you can land on facebook. As the provax forces push ever more draconian demands, it only reinforces the perception that they may have something to hide. They have no idea of PR how to, and I suspect it's all going to blow up in their faces when the informed consent issue is properly ventilated. If you believe in vaccination, remove the exemption from liability from the manufacturers, do actually independent multi site, double blinded controlled clinical trials using actual placebos and earn your trust like any other medical product. Hide behind the law or lie and people will smell a conspiracy (even if their isn't one).
I have a lot of empathy for your points:
My coworker's child died from whooping cough. She was too young to be vaccinated. Better herd immunity would have protected her, saved her life. She didn't just suffer, she died, because the herd immunity around her was too weak to prevent her being exposed to whooping cough.
I'd vote with you on the point of whether parental rights outweighs the imperative of society's interest in protecting ITSELF and protecting these kids, and protecting those who can't be vaccinated, and those for whom vaccines weren't effective.
--PeterM
Facebook, is really the only source his mother ever relied on for her anti-vaccine information.
This 'girl' is 18. She was born c. 2001. Facebook opened to everybody in 2006. Most kids receive a full panel of immunizations before they are five, at the recommendation of their physician.
This mother obviously and provably had other influences. The girl is lying in testimony, if the story is reported correctly.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Not at all. But silencing the group will not stop the problem. Theres a really old saying ‘keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer’. Silencing them does the exact opposite of the goal of saving lives. I dont want to know whats going on in the shadows. Its hard to see and there is too much slight of hand. Give them a stage so you know what to expect. Getting you to trigger into wanting to silence them is how they get you to give up your freedoms. Its small. Its not like youre hit with a binary decision of freedom | no freedom. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. They bombard us with this shit so they can take our freedom one bite at a time. This problem can easily be disolved without censorship. Censorship isnt even the most productive means. But of all the possible solutions, censorship advances a side effect that pertains nothing to the problem at hand. It is the preverbial two birds with one stone.
Believe me, im pretty pro vaccine, but im not willing to cross that line in the sand to make my point. Someones right to not agree with me is that line in the sand. I would rather be able to spot people that disagree with me than never know what goes on in the shadows. Maybe they wore a big red ballcap. I am less stressed knowing people are free to identify themselves than have to guess who conspires when I am not around.
He wrote an article at Salon.com called "Deadly Immunity" which Salon waited 6 YEARS to retract.
By then the damage was done. Huge numbers of people were freaked out by the stuff in the syringes with which their docs were poking their kids. It did not help that Kennedy followed it up with a book, and of course the obligatory book tour complete with appearances on talks shows where ignoramus hosts with left-ward political biases swoon over anybody with the Kennedy name and double-swoon for the adult son of the late uber-progressive idol Bobby Kennedy. There was ZERO critical coverage of all of this until it was too late.
By the time people started tapping the breaks on this luddite crap, it had spread across the entire political spectrum and you even had people on the right who would be completely opposed to anything from Bobby jr but who were starting to think about the issue from the opposite approack, namely "who gave the government the right to make me inject a drug into my kid?". When something bad spreads so thoroughly that it spans the ENTIRE political spectrum, we all have a problem.
If Facebook simply let people post stuff, then yeah, it's the fault of the idiots who posted and the idiots who absorbed uncritically, and Facebook itself is just an innocent conduit or public whiteboard/chalkboard/corkboard.
If, on the otherhand, Facebook "moderators" (AKA censors) interefered in any way with opposing views, or allowed people (particularly people paying them cash) to up-vote certain stories or "Like" certain viewpoints, or put up a bunch of "you may also like" pointers hooking to other related aluminum foil hattery, then there's some blame for the Zuck.
Facebook, Google, etc have been having things both ways for entirely too long. Either they are just conduits who are not liable cor content because they are just transporting and storing other peoples' stuff, OR they are a content provider and publisher who is exercising editorial control and who should therefore be legally liable for stuff. Congress enabled these companies back in the '90s to scoot by as conduits, but lately they've been acting as editors, and people in cogress have been taking notice and have been getting complaints from their constituents. This two-faced act may be running out of time.
Lindenberger said Facebook, or websites that were linked on Facebook, is really the only source his mother ever relied on for her anti-vaccine information.
Really, how empty a statement is that. He could have said, "The Chrome browser (or websites that were accessible via Chrome) was the only source" or "The Google search engine (or websites that were linked by search results) was the only source".
His mother, Jill Wheeler, told Undark, an online science magazine that first reported Lindenberger's story, that her son's decision was "like him spitting on me, saying 'You don't know anything, I don't trust you with anything.'"
...
(beyond illegal presence) is not relevent is crime committed by illegal aliens.
Why?
Because it's the one type of crime that is 100% preventable, guaranteed to be being comitted by a criminal, and which the federal government has a sovereign duty to prevent.
It does not matter if illegals are mor or less likely to do a particular crime than citizens --- we're stuck with our bad citizens and must deal with them, but we have no obligation at all to allow the citizens of other countries to sneak into our country and molest our innocent citizens. Every single rape or murder or robbery which is comitted by an illegal alien is a crime that would not have happened if the federal government had done its most basic duty and kept that interloper out.
Skin color does not matter. Language does not matter. If you crossed into the USA anywhere other than at a valid checkpoint or if you overstayed a visa and you then commit a crime, your crime constitutes a failure by the federal government and any American regardless of his/her skin color has the perfect right to oppose you and demand your punishment and deportation. Every American has a perfectly legitimate right to demand people not be allowed to remain in the country if they have already broken our laws by enetering illegally or illegally overstaying a visa, and no illegal alien can possibly exist in the USA for long without comitting additional crimes like identity theft and welfare fraud.
Air gives you cancer!
(hands over shopping-bag)
I'm sure an 18-year-old kid is a good source of well thought-out opinions regarding debates that have raged for decades and decades. Surely he isn't just parroting whatever he's been told.
Nobody back in the day talked about the problem of "fake news" spreading by telephone. Why the fuck is the medium related to the problem? You read stupid shit on Facebook and believed it. How is that different than hearing stupid shit over the telephone in 1985, or reading a book with incorrect information in 1932? This is nothing new. All of this hand-wringing over what to do is just to normalize the idea of controlling what information you're allowed to communicate to others. The open internet scares the shit out of politicians and governments around the world. This is how they're stepping in, and you're just handing them the fucking keys.
Noah Draper: 'There is no such thing as objective truth.'
Is that true?
I suppose you want us to make an exception for your objective truth statement that there is no objective truth, don't you?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The science behind vaccines was a lot less established in the 1700s. Given how haphazard medicine at the time was, I can't blame someone at the time from refusing to get contagious viruses inserted in their skin.
Of course, such excuses no longer imply.
And that's the thing that gets my piss to a boil. Essentially, these parents go down the "a dead kid is less hassle than an autistic kid, so let's not take chances" thought train.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The right to be wrong is absurd and worthy of mockery. Yes. You think I'm wrong, well, then you might want to tell me where I'm wrong. People can only learn if correct information is presented to them. So present.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you can show me how me looking at porn can have a negative impact on my children, we'll continue this conversation.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's fairly easy. If someone who has no qualification to talk about a subject whatsoever says something that contradicts what people who studied it throughout their lifetime agree on, it's very likely WRONG. Have people who know the subject examine the claim but don't follow some quack who pretends to "speak THE TRUTH (tm)" just because he says so.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Funny, he didn't say anything about the GOP. Are you feeling persecuted?
But since we're now talking vaccines AND immigrants, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras and Nicaragua all have higher rates of vaccination than the US.
The Right of stupid people to say what they like? Yeah, I think that that fits. Note that once you've decided that stopping stupid people from saying whatever they like, it's pretty easy to expand the definition (gradually, mind you!) of "stupid people" till the government is restricting anything they don't want to hear in public.
And remember, you may agree with the gov at first, but sooner or later, their definition of "stupid people saying the wrong thing(s) in public" will include things YOU want to say in public....
No, I'm not anti-vax. I wish that measles had been available when *I* was an infant. Alas, I was four or five before it was developed, much less available to the general public, much less mandatory.
Nor am I pro-stupid-people. I am, however, rather fond of the First Amendment. And restricting speech I disagree with isn't one of the exceptions listed in the First....
However restricting speech that represents a clear and present danger has never been part of the first amendment... though I'm not about to claim to be smart (dumb?) enough to try to apply that outside of the most blindingly obvious examples.
In this case, anti-vax is essentially fraud. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain". Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed a lot of these Anti-vaxxers are selling something (at least in Australia and the UK).
As far as I know, your 1st Amendment has never protected fraudulent expression.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Civil rights leaders in the '60s were in fact widely "de-platformed," ...
Therefore we shouldn't be afraid to de-platform ideas that we can reasonably agree are "wrong."
Other way around. It's precisely because we know civil rights movement was deplatformed in the 60s, that we should be very cautious when someone like you advocate to use the same tactics racists and bigots use.
The entire arc of the moral universe toward justice had to be forcefully gouged through every obstacle you can imagine, but it wasn't stopped.
Justice prevailed despite deplatforming and people getting in the way, not because of it.
The way I see it, you're not arguing for justice and morals, but rather the opposite. You're essentially saying it's ok to be evil as long as you tell yourself that you're good ("reasonably agree" the other side is wrong), because even if you turn out to be wrong and was actually doing evil, the moral universe will correct you (eventually). The victors write the history books.
You're essentially saying it's ok to be evil as long as you tell yourself that you're good ("reasonably agree" the other side is wrong), because even if you turn out to be wrong and was actually doing evil, the moral universe will correct you (eventually). The victors write the history books.
That's actually not far off what I'm saying, the difference is that I don't think that deplatforming is inherently evil (and therefore I'm not necessarily "being evil" by advocating it) and that I think we can get a good handle on discerning right from wrong.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
the difference is
There is no difference from what you said and I what I'm saying. I'm saying you're just convincing yourself that whatever you're doing isn't evil, even if it actually is evil.
I don't think that deplatforming is inherently evil
I'm sure you don't. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We can look through history for many groups who did evil things but didn't think they or the things they were doing evil. Those who deplatformed civil rights movement being one of them. Many Trumpsters today is another.
I think we can get a good handle on discerning right from wrong.
As above, history disagrees. Many conflicts including wars were fought with both sides thought they were the ones who could discern right from wrong.
It's also hard to believe that you think we can discern right from wrong when your original proposal assets the opposite: that there are "vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic" out there who can't be left alone to make that discernment themselves
incitements to violence, for example
Only when there's an immediate and clear danger. You can exhort people to violence all you want, as long as it's abstract. That's because that's not a restriction on speech per se, it's the police stepping in to stop violence.
It may amount to government censorship at a public school. However most colleges are privately funded so there's no issue.
In the US, there are only a handful of universities that don't take government funding. And even the ones that don't: what value is there to society in a "university" that does not encourage free ad lively discussion of every idea? Not much.
Nearly as bad in your opinion, but legally worlds apart. Again, the alternatives are enforced common carrier status and forced speech. Choose.
The laws will probably change. There's a rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, and is the left really going to stand up and defend corporations against individual rights?
I'd be delighted if Facebook were forced to choose between publisher (with liability) and common carrier (with no editorial discretion).
This is what the Western world's been doing for much of the late 20th century, and as you can see the bunk has been winning. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity?
The world does not move at internet speed.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
In the US, there are only a handful of universities that don't take government funding. And even the ones that don't: what value is there to society in a "university" that does not encourage free ad lively discussion of every idea? Not much.
Unless the government funding came with an agreement to allow any and all speech, a minority of government funding doesn't count. What value would there be in a university that does not encourage free and lively discussion of every idea? Well let's say there's one that used to have no limits but now doesn't allow, for example, free and lively discussion of putting puppies in a blender. Is it now worth not much? No, the university's value is practically unchanged. Disallowing discussion of a handful of bigoted and counterfactual ideas does not diminish its value much more than that.
The laws will probably change. There's a rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, and is the left really going to stand up and defend corporations against individual rights?
I'd be delighted if Facebook were forced to choose between publisher (with liability) and common carrier (with no editorial discretion).
Good luck changing those laws. And quite unfortunately there's no rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, just against very specific forms of private censorship, which is why they still want wanton deregulation and aren't bothered by the Citizens United decision. So yes the left really is more pro-free-speech in the proper legal meaning of the word, that shouldn't be a surprise.
The idea that Facebook could ever be forced to choose between being a publisher and being a common carrier is based on a false dichotomy or perhaps a misunderstanding of what a publisher is. They're already liable for what's hosted on their platform, which is why they'll get their pants sued off if they don't promptly take down child porn etc.
The world does not move at internet speed.
Meaning what?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Great advice.
Well let's say there's one that used to have no limits but now doesn't allow, for example, free and lively discussion of putting puppies in a blender. Is it now worth not much?
Let's say we ban discussion of putting human embryos in a blender, and ban fetal stem cell research. Surely that's OK? As soon as you set limits on discussion, you stop being good at "university".
Another fun example: Chinese scientists, for many years, could not use the term "sun spots", for political reasons. This got really awkward for solar researchers, as you might imagine.
Each and every little thing matters. And therenever just one once you cross the line, there's an ever-rising tide of restrictions, where researchers must carefully edit their publications for political acceptability, and can still be burned for something they published 10 years ago, when the rules were different.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So you appear to be arguing that deplatforming is inherently evil, and also that it's impossible to discern good from evil. The first point is highly questionable and the second is utterly ludicrous. The fact that most people who have done evil didn't realize that they were being evil in no way makes it harder to tell that they were being evil.
I also didn't say that the people who can't tell real from fake or logical from illogical are people who can't tell good from evil. They could. There are some who can't, but they're not the same people, and neither are majorities.
If we can't discern right from wrong, then why take any action to correct wrong? It's a recipe not merely for societal stagnation, but moral backsliding. You know the quote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Oops, hit reply too early.
Good luck changing those laws. And quite unfortunately there's no rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control,
I fell you have no experiential basis for what's commonly discussed on right-wing forums. The entire immigration debate is about corporate control vs our rights as citizens, from the point of view of the average conservative. And it's the single most important issue. The anger about this has been rising for years, and is getting near to violence now. You clearly have no idea.
The idea that Facebook could ever be forced to choose between being a publisher and being a common carrier is based on a false dichotomy or perhaps a misunderstanding of what a publisher is. They're already liable for what's hosted on their platform, which is why they'll get their pants sued off if they don't promptly take down child porn etc.
Perhaps, but even so, it's a better set of rules to protect us against monopoly control of public discussion. Facebook does not currently have liability in the US for pretty much anything unless they're told to take it down and fail to do so. Publishers are different. They're liable immediately for libel, obscenity, copyright violation, you name it. Facebook is not held to that standard, but it should be if they're going to censor their platform beyond what's legally required.
>The world does not move at internet speed.
Meaning what?
Meaning you seem to be expecting bad ideas to be debunked in a short time, not in a generation or two as is normal.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm aware that another apparent pet peeve conservatives have with corporations in general is their desire to import infinite numbers of cheap foreign laborers and illegally hire non-citizens. But if they really want to stop this, it should be fairly easy to get their lawmakers, particularly Mr. loose-cannon answers-to-noone President Tweety, to limit this and put employer-side legal consequences for illegally hiring non-citizens. That would end it quickly and easily, but they don't. So if they're honestly against corporate control, they're doing a really bad job of it. It's hard to imagine a group so incompetent would direct any violent urges effectively.
Perhaps, but even so, it's a better set of rules to protect us against monopoly control of public discussion. Facebook does not currently have liability in the US for pretty much anything unless they're told to take it down and fail to do so. Publishers are different. They're liable immediately for libel, obscenity, copyright violation, you name it. Facebook is not held to that standard, but it should be if they're going to censor their platform beyond what's legally required.
Facebook is nowhere near a monopoly player in online discussion or even general-purpose social media. You could argue that there's a social media oligopoly. Also, again the idea that Facebook should be held to the standard of a publisher if they're going to censor beyond what's legally required is a false dichotomy. To make it real would require sweeping free speech restrictions, in the proper legal sense of the word. I'm not for that.
Meaning you seem to be expecting bad ideas to be debunked in a short time, not in a generation or two as is normal.
It doesn't take a generation or two to debunk bad or factually wrong ideas after they're introduced or repopularized, and that's a great thing because we wouldn't have made it this far as a civilization otherwise - we'd drown in every lie and prejudice ever invented. This is a relatively modern problem with relatively modern causes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
But if they really want to stop this, it should be fairly easy to get their lawmakers, particularly Mr. loose-cannon answers-to-noone President Tweety, to limit this and put employer-side legal consequences for illegally hiring non-citizens. That would end it quickly and easily, but they don't. So if they're honestly against corporate control, they're doing a really bad job of it. It's hard to imagine a group so incompetent would direct any violent urges effectively.
You've identified why the average conservative has become so angry. The mainstream GOP is blatantly corrupt and firmly in the pocket of the very very rich. The mainstream Dems are too of course, but that's just expected. The fact that the King of Tweets could do nothing to get a wall up when the GOP held both Houses spoke volumes. Let alone more effective legislation along the lines you describe.
Naturally the right is far more pissed with the GOP than the Dems, as is always the way with schisms.
So if they're honestly against corporate control, they're doing a really bad job of it. It's hard to imagine a group so incompetent would direct any violent urges effectively.
You're inappropriately conflating the politicians with the masses. The discord between them is the heart of current politics.
And it's not so much different on the left. The anger isn't as strong or as focused (yet), but it's also building. In Seattle during the run-up to the 2016 elections, it seemed like every 3rd car had a Bernie sticker on it, but I only saw 1 Hillary sticker that year. And I saw 3 "Giant Meteor of Death 2016" stickers! But the Dem primaries are rigged by design, so we got Trump vs Hillary.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Sorry, again.
Facebook is nowhere near a monopoly player in online discussion or even general-purpose social media. You could argue that there's a social media oligopoly. Also, again the idea that Facebook should be held to the standard of a publisher if they're going to censor beyond what's legally required is a false dichotomy. To make it real would require sweeping free speech restrictions, in the proper legal sense of the word. I'm not for that.
The oligopoly acts in uniform, is the problem. Deplatforming one outspoken conservative after another (well, specifically those who speak out against Muslim immigration in Europe, again for reasons of corporate profit).
As far as "sweeping free speech restrictions": tell me straight up, do you believe that publicly held corporations have free speech rights?
It doesn't take a generation or two to debunk bad or factually wrong ideas after they're introduced or repopularized
Seems to, when it's more than a fad. And anti-vax has moved beyond fad into deep-seated prejudice. People can't get over the correlation in timing between when kids get vaccines, and when autism first becomes obvious. It's a very strong emotional impact, unlikely to be overcome by reason in the short term. But logical argument does seem to make a difference in what beliefs pass from generation to generation.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Oh I believe there's objective truth but but we'll never know what it is the closest we ever get is convincing ourselves within the tiny localized system that we interact with in our tiny lives. Made things are regarded as truth are just relative constructs. True relative to another artificial construct or imagined idea. So the best anybody ever has is what they are capable of believing and perceiving. And everyone has a slightly different version. So while we're must be some kind of objective truth, we're too small scale do, I'm too limited to ever observe anything with full comprehension. as soon as we tell ourselves were right we then cut off the infinite levels of detail and lines of causality that are part of that dynamic, for the sake of convenience.
But from a psychological standpoint there is no such thing as deprogramming gonly alternate programming.
So you appear to be arguing that deplatforming is inherently evil
I didn't say deplatforming is inherently evil. "Inherently" is your word, not mine.
I point out that you admitted that deplatforming is a tactic used by racists and bigots against the civil rights movement. I said it is for that reason we should be cautious when people like you suggest we use the tactic again.
and also that it's impossible to discern good from evil.
Nope. Didn't say that. That's a false dilemma and a strawman.
You are the one claiming we can (have a good handle) discern right and wrong. I point to how history is full of examples of the opposite, where at least two sizable groups of people each have their own sense of right and wrong clash, cannot agree on what is right and wrong, to the point of bloody conflicts.
That's not an argument on impossibility. That's pointing to countless counter examples to your claim that we're that good at discerning good and evil.
The fact that most people who have done evil didn't realize that they were being evil in no way makes it harder to tell that they were being evil.
No, it does make it harder. We're not telling "them" that "they" are evil. "We" are not some impartial 3rd party observing in on "them". We are 1st party. "We" are "them" and "they" are "us". We are judging ourselves, and as I said, history is full of people judging themselves and getting it wrong (in hindsight)
I also didn't say that the people who can't tell real from fake or logical from illogical are people who can't tell good from evil.
I didn't say you said they are. I'm saying one leads to the other. Easy example being well vaccines, where failing to tell logic lead to them making the wrong decision over vaccines, which in turn end up doing something bad (e.g hurting their kids/other people's kids)
neither are majorities
So? There's enough of them around that you won't leave them alone. There's enough of them for me to point to all those instances in history to undermine your assertion that we're that good.
If we can't discern right from wrong, then why take any action to correct wrong?
First, again, that's a false dilemma and a strawman. I'm not claiming we outright can't discern right and wrong. You're the one who made the claim, that we have "a good handle" on discerning right and wrong. I'm contesting the "good handle" part.
We can try to be good, and I do think we should try, but we're not that good at actually achieving it. Unfortunately, the history of humanity is not one of continuous upward arrow. That's why we have to be cautious.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
What do you think I've been doing? I'm advising you to be cautious to repeat the same tactic the racists and bigots used back in the day. Remember that saying by Einstein about insanity?
If you put financial penalties on antivaxxers like Australia, problem solved.
https://www.pri.org/stories/australia-a-penalties-anti-vaxxers
So if deplatforming isn't inherently evil, and we can reasonably tell right from wrong, why not do it? Because racists and bigots used the same tactic? They've marched with signs and chants too, are those tactics similarly tainted? If so, we'd be edging into "Hitler drank water" territory.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
the measles vaccine is recommended for infants between 12 and 15 months.... he's 18, and she got all of her information from facebook groups... what's wrong with this timeline?
All of these movements predate Facebook, sometimes by centuries.
There was strong resistance to smallpox inoculation in Britain, that was only somewhat reduced when the children of the royal family were inoculated in 1722.
Throughout the 19th century, there was religious opposition to vaccinations, and resistance to vaccinations today is strongest in muslim countries such as Pakistan where Facebook is not so pervasive.
The anti-GMO movement started in the 1990s, long before social media became common. Facebook was started in 2004.
Believe it or not, political extremism also predates Facebook. Seriously.
The Nigerian Prince scam also predates the internet, but the internet made it much, much easier. So more people fell for it.
Anti-vax nonsense may have been around for awhile, but Facebook lowered the barrier to entry for idiots to post their drivel and people who don't know any better to have their beliefs confirmed by idiots.
So if deplatforming isn't inherently evil, and we can reasonably tell right from wrong, why not do it?
*If*
The first clause is unknown (I don't know if anything is "inherently" evil, that's why I didn't say it is or isn't; the only one asserting such a thing exists is you, and you're further asserting deplatforming isn't inherently evil), the second I've already shown that we can't do it well enough to really find out the first clause.
Also, the question is not "why not do it". It's "why do it"? The onus is not on the rest of the world to prove you wrong. It's for you to convince the rest of the world to listen to you.
It's not my job to tell you "why not". I've just been telling you why I don't find your "why yes" convincing. To reiterate what I said in the beginning, your position appears to be that as long as we tell ourselves something isn't evil (and that we're good at judging these things), then it's not evil. That's a very... masturbatory?... attitude. Reminds me to how Trump talks up how he's the greatest negotiator, how he's got the biggest a-brain, how he's gonna build this amazing wall and this wall is gonna work so well and we're gonna win so much you wouldn't believe it, etc.
The fact your responses are getting shorter also doesn't make you look convincing. It makes you appear to not really be committed to furthering your cause. What was that about evil thrives when good men do nothing?
They've marched with signs and chants too, are those tactics similarly tainted?
Didn't say anything about tactics being "tainted". This is the second time I caught a strawman from you.
My "why do it" is because I think it's good and it's clearly effective. I'm not going to not do something that furthers my goals because I think there's some tiny chance I might be completely wrong despite my best judgement and most careful consideration.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Internet makes crackpots (and racists for that matter) more visible.
That is the point.
The rest of the thread appears to be arguing for the case of arguing. Pointless.