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.

Comments

I too like to live dangerously

[cordovaCon83]

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.

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

But where did you manage to find a hose and a rubber chicken at this hour?

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Opportunist]

Please stay 50 feet downwind from me.

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

They might not realize it, but I have witnessed many, many conservatives using turns of phrase and lingo that I first saw traded around on 4chan's /pol/ board years ago.

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, while now bipartisan, antivax started with and remains majority-owned by deranged California-style leftists.

No part of the political spectrum is proof from idiocy. With regard to antivaxxers? The real cause is indeed - god help me - fake news.

Anyone of a certain age remembered when eggs were good, then bad, then good. Wine is obviously bad, except it's good! Except no wait, it isn't!

Media has for decades tried to distill scientific studies into moronic sound bytes and unfortunately has succeeded. So of course there are people who now look at everything with suspicion - because scientists are so often wrong about, well, everything!

They aren't, of course, but you'd need to actually read findings rather than headlines to understand and ain't nobody got time to dat.

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Jason Levine]

NARF!

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

Not too long ago, Trump could have been called a NY liberal, however, much like the anti-vaxers he found a home in the GOP as a 'conservative'. They consistently use the dimwitted as tools.

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[serviscope_minor]

But where did you manage to find a hose and a rubber chicken at this hour?

Depends. Does it have to have a pulley in the middle, or will a regular one do?

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Bryansix]

So you know the importance of eating ALL the eggs then?

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[Bryansix]

Repeat after me: "Alex Jones is a comedian".

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[Darinbob]

Anti vaccination has occured for as long as vaccination existed.

And it's a sad tendency of some people who are short sighted to see a group of deranged people and then automatically assume they must belong to a disliked political party. It's a vain attempt to brand Favorite Party as always wholesome and good and Hated Party as only attracting deviants and the mentally ill.

If your goal is to score points with people who have the same political stance as you, then you can continue making peurile ad hominem attacks. But if you want to actually convince someone to your point of view (or *gasp* find common ground) then you need to use intelligent arguments.

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[dgatwood]

But where did you manage to find a hose and a rubber chicken at this hour?

Depends. Does it have to have a pulley in the middle, or will a regular one do?

What kind of chicken has a pulley in the middle? Is it to help you pullet?

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of chicken has a pulley in the middle? Is it to help you pullet?

*Golf clap*

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[dgatwood]

No part of the political spectrum is proof from idiocy. With regard to antivaxxers? The real cause is indeed - god help me - fake news.

No, not really. There will always be some amount of misinformation out there. The problem is actually an evolutionary issue. Humans evolved over the millennia to trust what they can see, and to trust certain trusted individuals to provide information about what they can't. Their friends fall into that second category. And as long as their friends are properly informed, that system works reasonably well.

Historically, the main thing that prevented misinformation from getting broadly distributed to those friends was the cost of publishing it in the first place. Most people with enough money to do that were not complete idiots, so there was a built-in, largely financially motivated bulls**t filter.

With the rise of social media, the cost of distributing information (correct or incorrect) fell through the floor, and as a result, the need for someone at least moderately intelligent to conclude that the message has merit before spreading it far and wide no longer exists. Therefore, the opinions of intellectuals and complete bozos now have equal chance of being distributed far and wide, and the odds of your friends having incorrect information becomes significantly higher. So anyone who tends to trust those friends then goes on to repeat the bad information, and it spreads a lot like the plague.

In the absence of gatekeepers, your only real options are to either believe everything, disbelieve everything, or investigate everything yourself. Most people tend to fall into one of the first two categories, with the majority falling into the first one, leaving only a tiny minority of people constantly posting links to Snopes or whatever in a desperate attempt to stem the tide.

In other words, the real problem is that we haven't taught people enough about how to think critically, and the only viable fix for that is to instill in everyone a sufficiently sophisticated bulls**t meters. Any other solution, like specifically targeting "fake news", is basically just sticking your fingers in the dike as the water level inches closer and closer to going over the top rim.

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone is too young to remember Monkey Island.

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Aighearach]

Around here, pretty much everybody expects to toss a few rubber chickens at the server late on a Friday night, I can't see this being a problem.

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't a comedian supposed to amuse us? I think he's more of a grotesque impersonator.

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me: "Alex Jones is a comedian".

Tell that to his fans. Wear a bulletproof vest.

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

Iâ(TM)d like to hear more about this dike fingering...

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

Meathook, it's you? How's your parrot? ;-)

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also people who believe the world is flat, the moon landing was faked, that there is a global conspiracy run by Jewish bankers, that aliens exist and abduct people to physically "probe" their bodies (usually with perverse sexual intent), and various other tomfoolery.

Remember that we as humans are at our cores still...animals. Take away the rational part of our brains, take away the veneer that is civilization, and you will find a slightly more advanced form of chimp or great ape.

Re: I too like to live dangerously

[thegarbz]

Anti vaccination has occured for as long as vaccination existed.

While this is true in strictly logical sense, it is not true for the purposes of discussion on vaccinations. The anti-vaxxers have not had a following of any significance beyond a religious belief and the following was small enough that many diseases have in the past been effectively eliminated.

Their rise since the 90s fraudulent link to autism is what has mad anti-vaxx significant and has brought back the once locally eradicated diseases. This level of brain damage has not existed as long as vaccination.

Re:I too like to live dangerously

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing, is aside from some people on /x/ (designated schizophrenic board) and /pol/ (enough said), 4chan is pro-vax. And the ones who are anti-vax get harassed endlessly for being dumb.

So...what's the point?

[shellster_dude]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[e3m4n]

don't you see? Its the same narrative over and over.... create the crisis, exploit peoples emotions, step in to _protect_ everyone by infringing on a right. Insert your villian here: Terrorists, Child molesters, Gun Owners, Anti Vaxers, Russian bots, Hate speech.... There is always some reason to suppress your rights. IMO this happens way too frequently that its most likely false-flag propaganda just to kick the can down the road as we march toward enslavement.

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[plague911]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Shaitan]

"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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Opportunist]

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".

Re:So...what's the point?

[Opportunist]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[DontBeAMoran]

I don't really care what's happening as long as it's detrimental to Facebook.

Re:So...what's the point?

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[CrimsonAvenger]

What right is being taken away here?

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....

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

The right to contribute to both your children's and society's collective vulnerability to potentially deadly disease outbreaks?

Re:So...what's the point?

[fat man's underwear]

Exactly why you don't bring your own research to your doctor, he took decades to be wrong, you took months to be right.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[edris90]

There is no such thing as deprogramming. You can program or condition a stronger new imperative an alternative cult (societal norms). But seeing as there is simply alternative programming and none of them are any more correct than any other objectively, the being more honest to refer to it as counterconditioning someone an attempt to recruit them to your own cult. Society is no less of a cult then the Kool-Aid drinking comet worshippers. Is no more valid then the orders it opposes. it just has more power at the moment

Re: So...what's the point?

[bistromath007]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[bistromath007]

"We need to use our freedoms to limit our freedoms." You're a fascist.

Re: So...what's the point?

[fazig]

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?

Re: So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[fbobraga]

Accountability is the key here, I think...

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[e3m4n]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[bistromath007]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[e3m4n]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Registered Coward v2]

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...

Re:So...what's the point?

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[e3m4n]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Drethon]

What right is being taken away here?

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

  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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Shaitan]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[BringsApples]

Kid goes against his mom's wishes, congress investigates.

What?

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that these crackpot (and racist for that matter) groups seem to be growing more prevalent thanks to the internet.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Solandri]

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?

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Shaitan]

"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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you -- bitch -- are going to tell me what's WRONG? Force your own RIGHT onto me ! Not before I bust yo face and kick your bleeding Trotsky-slut body into the gutter.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

"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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!

Re:So...what's the point?

[DaFallus]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Lothsahn]

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...

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[chill]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Drethon]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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."

Re:So...what's the point?

[cordovaCon83]

Stop using the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" argument

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[swillden]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Darinbob]

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!

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stories that fit together unusually well often contain a fair bit of fiction

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's incredibly incorrect.

ALL speech is protected. Literally all of it. There are NO exceptions.
Point to one written in the Constitution or its amendments.

I'll wait.

Re: So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness no woman will ever want anything to do with you.

Male Feminist Incel, MFI

Re:So...what's the point?

[fbobraga]

if "his mom's wishes" have a price (to her), we don't need to forbid anything...
* wallets are the more sensible part of the human body (anyone with litle knowledge in anatomy knows that :P)

Re:So...what's the point?

[AHuxley]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolls, and Russians, and Retards, oh my.

Re:So...what's the point?

[mhotchin]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[N1AK]

The right of self determination - the right to decide for yourself what you do with your body and your life

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Aighearach]

What right is being taken away here?

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Aighearach]

You can. And, I strongly suggest you would benefit from looking up what that phrase actually means. And what the legal conclusion is.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Aighearach]

"If you get 'em, stick 'em."

Maybe this whole problem could be solved with a bounty and a dart gun.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Aighearach]

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

Re:So...what's the point?

[DontBeAMoran]

Yeah, well... when the time comes to kick ass their ass, Facebook better hope there's enough bubblegum on the planet.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Baleet]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

Re:So...what's the point?

[e3m4n]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[dfenstrate]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[bluegutang]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Opportunist]

If you can show me how me looking at porn can have a negative impact on my children, we'll continue this conversation.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[mjwx]

What right is being taken away here?

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great advice.

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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."

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[lgw]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[edris90]

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.

Re: So...what's the point?

[edris90]

But from a psychological standpoint there is no such thing as deprogramming gonly alternate programming.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:So...what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wrong

[youngone]

The anti-vaxxer I know has been one for well over 20 years, since before even Jenny McCarthy.
She got her "information" from a midwife. From what I understand the midwife community in my country is riddled with anti-vaxxers. I don't know why, they have to get a BSc to practise.
I would think the science bit of the BSc would rule that sort on nonsense out, but apparently not.

Re:Wrong

[mark-t]

Where, may I ask, did you get the impression that the mom's false impressions were made 18 years ago?

The study that McCarthy quoted wasn't written 18 years ago either. In fact, Facebook was around for at least four years *BEFORE* that study was even published.

Those "idiotic beliefs" about the alleged links between vaccination ant autism that you see everywhere today are barely more than 10 years old today in popular culture. The concept could easily have been well entrenched in Facebook at the time that the kid's mom started buying into that crap.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Not OP, but the man in the article is 18 years old and was never vaccinated prior to adulthood and gaining autonomy over his own body. His mother probably got her idea from at least when he was an infant, since that is when pediatricians would try to vaccinate him.

Re:Wrong

[mark-t]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that his mom developed the strong opinions she held about vaccination more than 18 years ago. All it means is that she developed those opinions sometime before the subject came up at his school and he needed parental permission to get the vaccination. Up until surprisingly recently, a person didn't generally have to be *opposed* to vaccination to have not had their kid vaccinated when they otherwise could have been.... but the number of kids that this would have applied to to would be pretty small... much less than the kids who couldn't get vaccinated on account of known medical conditions, and easily small enough that herd immunity would still be in effect, so it might go unnoticed for many years. As recently as only 10 or so years ago, it was still virtually unthinkable in most developed countries to not allow your child to get vaccinated unless there was a specific diagnosed medical condition that the child had which precluded it. If a parent had not given permission for a vaccination when a time actually came for it to otherwise happen, it was generally assumed that there was a valid medical reason, and until very recently, this was not typically questioned.

Re:Wrong

[h33t l4x0r]

From what I understand the midwife community in my country is riddled with anti-vaxxers.

The midwives I've met have all had like 8 cats each, so my money is on toxoplasmosis.

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Stupid

[hey!]

It's important to add this qualification: multiple *independent* sources of information. It's a well-known tactic for propaganda to use multiple mouthpieces. When you see a bunch of people taking *exactly the same position* (often in the same words) it's really just one source of information.

Re:Stupid

[gweihir]

The problem with identifying independent sources is that this requires common sense. Most people do not have much of that and the anti-vaxxers clearly have none.

Legal adult request and received medical care.

[MrNJ]

... breaking news at 10

Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it curious how illegal immigration never comes up when we're all railing against anti-vaxxers? I suppose those kids are all inoculated.

Re:Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes up plenty. Since you can't get rid of the immigrants, I guess we'll have to implement free health care for all ;)

Re:Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop lying. This always comes up through a someone like you who abuse this topic of national health to inject their other political agendas.
You think a fence will protect you from disease? Or maybe you want to argue for forced vaccination for illegal immigrants?

I'll humour you. I'm from West Europe and there's a lot of illegals that have entered our wealthy western countries among the refugees here.
I have a friend who happens to work as a general physician at a hospital. According to them immigrants (also illegal ones) make up a large group that get their children willingly vaccinated. And our doctors do it for free, because that's what they do with such basic vaccination as MMR in our country. Apparently they do this so often that my friend is concerned about them using up the resources that are meant for our native population. Take it with a grain of salt, as that friend is a bit on the nationalistic side.

Or in other words, that may fit better into your perspective: The illegals who we expect to breed like rabbits, because that is what it took in their home countries, are ensuring the survival of their children with our advanced medicine while the native morons are exposing their offspring to unnecessary dangers by refusing to use our advanced medicine.

Re:Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Milton Friedman say something about a welfare state and open borders? Might be worth going back and looking into.

Re:Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup you get one or the other never both, he was team open borders.

Problem is exacerbated...

[nwaack]

...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.

Re:Problem is exacerbated...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.

Re:Problem is exacerbated...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

GenY/Z are the ones who live their lives through social media, and according to them they're too fucking poor to have kids.

Clearly avocado toast is to blame.

Re:Problem is exacerbated...

[k6mfw]

and the scary thing is if you can't trust your mom...

Re:Problem is exacerbated...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but the kids aren't vaccinated, so that at least thins the herd a bit...

This is a self-correcting problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So why the moral panic?

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Natural selection at its technological finest.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[Drethon]

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?

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[shellster_dude]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[thereddaikon]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[gweihir]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[Opportunist]

Because the idiots then seek medical aid for preventable diseases and I get to foot the bill.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re: This is a self-correcting problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[Drethon]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[Gilgaron]

Getting vaccinated doesn't guarantee a protective titer, if too many people opt out it will lose societal level effectiveness.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[jcochran]

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%.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[chill]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[taustin]

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.

Re:This is a self-correcting problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So why the moral panic?

Parents who are anti-vaccines will stop their offspring from getting vaccines, too.

Government to the rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Government to the rescue!

[bobbied]

Isn't that where we are headed anyway? Government control of everything?

Shall we dig out the Jackboots and brown shirts now? (sarc off)

May I suggest we take a bit less aggressive stance here.. Government isn't the answer to everything. In this case, a bit of an educational effort may go a long way towards warding off the dis-information campaigns that come from the AntiVaxx Dogma. Can we at least try that first?

The battle over "fake news" will only be won when "real news" is recognized and applauded for being right and that takes education on the issues, balanced and factual education.

Re:Government to the rescue!

[aquacrayfish]

Does that mean America lost that battle already, or perhaps should I be less cynical?

Confirmation bias is not new.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 then

[cascadingstylesheet]

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?

Re:well then

[plague911]

I realize you are being sarcastic. But there are actually loads of solutions which do not violate any notion of free speech. The most basic is to actually educate our population on how to judge the validity of a source. Some schools are doing that, unfortunately the elderly (the most gullible for various reasons, including age related mental denervation) are out of reach. We should start internet based source validity courses to the elderly.

Re:well then

[Shaitan]

"We should start internet based source validity courses to the elderly."

Try mailing those courses if you actually want to reach the elderly and get AARP to do it.

Re:well then

[Anonymous Coward]

hold any parent that refuses vaccination accountable for the murder of their children if they die of said illness. If they come down with the illness and someone around them dies, due to vaccine intollerance, then charge them for murder in the 2nd.

Once the first couple of high profile cases are decided and the parents go to jail, the others will realize this is serious and fall in line.

Re:well then

[Opportunist]

How about trying to educate people to be able to tell when they're being fed bullshit? I know, I know, for the longest time our parties benefited big time from an electorate too stupid to tell when they're being lied to, but I guess it's time to end this for the greater good.

Re:well then

[lactose99]

Lynching anti-vaxxers is a good start

Re:well then

[tsqr]

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but it isn't the elderly who are preventing their small children from being immunized.

Re:well then

[Hentai007]

Seriously, what are we supposed to do with this? Lynch Zuckerberg?

That's a good start.

Re:well then

[jeff4747]

Well, I'd suggest that Facebook would be an excellent place for some education campaigns, to help counter the anti-vaxx propoganda we now know is on Facebook.

Re:well then

[jwhyche]

While I understand your frustration with the stupid, I do believe that "lynching" might be a little extreme. I think we should make them pay for it. You want to be a dumb ass and not vaccinate your spawn, fine. Insurance and government medical don't have to cover your dumb ass for such illnesses. Or insurances get to charge you more for your stupidity.

Re:well then

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we go back in time 20 years first?

Re:well then

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition, extra taxation to pay for the public health costs for those who choose not the vaccinate themselves or their children and do not have a legitimate medical reason. And legal liability if my vaccinated kid gets a preventable illness traceable to your un-vaccinated spawn.

And if someone dies as a result, manslaughter charges.

Re: well then

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't want to be educated. Being stupid is cool. And its much easier. Massive social change takes generations. The best we can hope for in the short term is extinction.

Re:well then

[kqs]

Or insurances get to charge you more for your stupidity.

This is a good idea. Insurance companies will charge you more if you smoke; they should also charge you more if you don't vaccinate yourself or your family. Let them subsidize my insurance rate.

Or is selective idiocy a pre-existing condition?

Re: well then

[Opportunist]

And I wonder when this cult of stupidity started. Back when I was a kid, we did celebrate people who knew shit. Hell, even in game shows you had to be a fucking genius to win anything. They asked questions that required some actual knowledge, some education in geography, history, even physics. Today, most gameshow questions are about which worthless celebrity fucks whom and what movie got the last Oscar. Probably because if they asked the questions that were asked in the 80s, not a single contestant would survive the first round of questions.

Then look at what doubles as celebrity these days. The creed seems to be "Can't sing, can't dance, can't even form a coherent sentence, hey, give her a reality TV show!", at least that's the only thing I could possibly name as a reason for how that Kardas...whatever chick got a show. In earlier days, celebrities were "merely" movie and rock stars, but they could at least act and sing and dance! Many of them could do that at the same time. Today I'm already happy if a celebrity can at least fake doing one of them.

How did this happen? When did we start celebrating utter uselessness?

Re: well then

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this happen? When did we start celebrating utter uselessness?

I don't think we are celebrating uselessness. I think we've just gotten so prosperous that it takes less skill/effort to do the same jobs we had before.

Consider Ford's assembly line. Before it, manufacturing required workers to have some skill and knowledge. After it, you can train up some lesser skilled people to man the station and repeatedly do just one thing over and over. You still get more productivity, but require less skilled workers to man the stations.

Or in computing, back in the day there was no fancy IDEs, no Internet to look things up, not as many pre-built libraries that does the exact thing you're looking for, no slashdot. Development required some skill. Nowadays, almost anybody can become a script kiddie by looking up a few things.

Where this will lead us has been imagined, a few notable examples I can think of

1) Star Trek, where technically the masses don't have to work and just get everything they want from a replicator, but there are still quite a number of people who are eager to explore the universe, seeking to better themselves

2) Brave New World. The machines and few elite smart people rule over everything. The dumb masses are placated with drugs, smart phones, reality tv, bread and circuses, etc.

3) The Matrix. The machines surpass even the few elite smart people. Machines take over everything, even the smart ones can just plug into the Matrix and be blissfully ignorant.

I imagine humanity will experience a bit of each.

So it's the Internet's fault?!

[nadass]

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!!

Don't blame the messenger

[SmaryJerry]

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.

Re:Don't blame the messenger

[RobinH]

Probably the biggest source of misinformation when I was younger was email forwards. There was no quick way to verify the information, it was written to sound compelling, and it was very easy to share with your friends and relatives. Snopes became huge by becoming the de facto source to check on the validity of a forwarded email.

Before that, it was actually faxes. I'm not old enough to have worked in an office before email really replaced it, but people used to forward hoaxes, chain letters, and all the same stuff to their colleagues by fax machine.

What's changing is the transaction cost, and reach. With fax machines the cost was quite high (paper/phone line tied up), and the number of people you could reach was limited. With email it got cheaper and easier to spread faster. Facebook is the next generation of that, because it even shows you stories that didn't come from your acquaintances. Facebook spreads the misinformation itself, to the people most inclined to believe it.

There has never been a time when "everyone knew that information was not reliable." Every single person had to learn that the hard way, sometimes by a parent explicitly explaining it to them, or by being embarrassed when they forwarded something that turned out to be false.

Re:Don't blame the messenger

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not old enough

Then you'll forgive me for not believing you.

Re:Don't blame the messenger

[RobinH]

Well, faxes were certainly in use, but email had taken over as far as forwarding stuff to other people. :)

Re:Don't blame the messenger

[SmaryJerry]

""There has never been a time when "everyone knew that information was not reliable.""" Actually there was. Schools would not accept any web sources at all even Wikipedia or the top google search result.

Facebook Time travel?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Facebook hasn't been around for 18 years

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[eepok]

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.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[gweihir]

I agree on that. The solution is, unfortunately, mandatory vaccinations. We need traffic laws, laws that say children have to get some schooling, etc. It seems yet another group of stupid morons has managed to make yet another state-enforced restriction necessary.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is, in truth, a massive failure of our education system here in the states. People aren't taught critical thinking skills as much as they're taught to believe indoctrination, ANY indoctrination. Those of us that don't naturally feel icky enough about it to start questioning shit and looking for real, reliable, verifiable data, end up with some really fucked up worldviews that we insist on propping up despite any evidence to the contrary. That leads to situations like the story above.

We need to focus more on discerning fact from fiction and somehow getting people to understand the difference between opinion and fact. Until we do that this sort of idiocy will continue.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[edtice1559]

The best solution that we have right now is mandatory vaccinations. But a *better* solution would be more effective vaccinations. Right now, when somebody doesn't vaccinate, they expose three groups of people: Themselves, those who can't get vaccinated, and those who got the vaccines but wren't completely immunized. I have no sympathy for the first group, a fair amount of sympathy for the second, and a lot for the third. If we can find vaccines that are both more effective and can be given to more people, we'll probably get a better result. In the interim, we are seeing some progress toward exactly what you suggest. Although some states are also moving backward so it's a constant fight.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[sinij]

You failed to account for "engagement algorithm" (aka radicalization engine) that Facebook uses to drive up revenue. In your examples Pacific Bell didn't call you and suggested how to build a bob, US Postal Service didn't offer you tips on how to maximize spread of noxious substances when mailed envelope is opened, and Highway 101 didn't direct you to drive toward accident that closed multiple lanes.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't exactly like that. Unlike USPS, Highway 101 and Pacific Bell, Facebook will "recommend" stuff to users based on what they are interested, creating an echo chamber.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So, blame the human, and not the tool? What a profound and logical idea. It's a shame you can't convince the anti-gun idiots to adopt that logic...

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that people are moral agents and have responsability for their own lives and actions?
I think you need to leave, sir.
Good day-- I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

But just the same, I prefer to have an honest discussion about root issues.

At root, these people say and do stupid things (whether on Facebook or elsewhere) regarding vaccines because they lost trust in pharmaceutical research and business practices. The industry lost their faith and credit by perpetrating lots of shady deeds, pimping dangerous medicines, and rigging pharma research.

People buy non-GMO organic whatever at inflated prices because they lost faith in industrial agriculture. Brexit is happening and Euroskeptic parties are surging because people lost faith in the EU. Fake news happens because people have lost faith in journalists, who seem more partisan hacks than beacons of truth.

There is, at the moment, a crisis of faith in the institutions, because the institutions spent the last fifty years putting the almighty dollar ahead of ethics. In the 50's, when people were told DDT was safe, they believed it and gladly stood in clouds of it. They told people that smoking was healthy and that more doctors smoked Camels because it was better for your T-zone. Now, when people are told vaccines are safe, nobody believes it: pharma and chemists and doctors have spent all their credibility.

The real question is how journalists, pharma, doctors, argiculture, the EU, governments, etc. can all regain the credibility that they all worked so hard to destroy.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook uses algorithms which determine both how many times a message is seen, and to whom it is shown.

A more appropriate metaphor would be a cable company which has access to a large amount of programming, but ensures that every channel shows a few hours of antivaccination propoganda every day.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here. The only solution is mandatory tagging and drugging and censoring private discourse on websites. Obviously.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Gilgaron]

Not too much you can do about the third group... if you increase the immunogenicity you're going to increase the likelihood that those with a robust response will have a dangerous reaction. A less dangerous, but added cost, route would be to test the recipient's immune titer after they've finished the vaccination course and determine if they need more boosters.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[drainbramage]

But, you repeat yourself.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the correct answer. Or as W. Edwards Deming often taught us, "blame the process, not the person."

Sadly, the post you are responding to is everything we've come to expect from years of government training!

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

The moment it is mandatory is the moment you create a bunch of foster kids, because nothing legitimizes false fear better than "They're so dangerous the government has to FORCE people to do it!". Considering the survival statistics of foster kids are worse than the survival stats of unvaccinated kids, and the cost of putting mom and dad in prison for 18 years is not cheap, perhaps you might want to re-think your position.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

The first group are often children who don't have a choice.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

A less dangerous, but added cost, route would be to test the recipient's immune titer after they've finished the vaccination course and determine if they need more boosters.

I think this is just about the first truly productive comment I've seen in this discussion (and many others like it). If the ongoing risk to vaccinated people is really so dire that folks around here are getting enthusiastically modded up for saying people who choose not to vaccinate their kids should be jailed/ostracized, that their children should be yanked, etc., why in the world would we NOT throw a bit of money at the problem first before taking one more [gigantic] step toward a police state?

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[edtice1559]

I think we all wish that stupidity could be outlawed. But heck we can't even keep it modded down sometimes!

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[jeff4747]

Facebook's algorithms show you articles on subjects you appear to be interested in.

If you start looking at articles about vaccines, Facebook's algorithms will feed you a large quantity of anti-vaxx propaganda.

While Facebook didn't write that propaganda, Facebook does intentionally deliver the propaganda to the people most open to believing it.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[TigerPlish]

At root, these people say and do stupid things (whether on Facebook or elsewhere) regarding vaccines because they lost trust in pharmaceutical research and business practices. The industry lost their faith and credit by perpetrating lots of shady deeds, pimping dangerous medicines, and rigging pharma research.

People buy non-GMO organic whatever at inflated prices because they lost faith in industrial agriculture. Brexit is happening and Euroskeptic parties are surging because people lost faith in the EU. Fake news happens because people have lost faith in journalists, who seem more partisan hacks than beacons of truth.

There is, at the moment, a crisis of faith in the institutions, because the institutions spent the last fifty years putting the almighty dollar ahead of ethics. In the 50's, when people were told DDT was safe, they believed it and gladly stood in clouds of it. They told people that smoking was healthy and that more doctors smoked Camels because it was better for your T-zone. Now, when people are told vaccines are safe, nobody believes it: pharma and chemists and doctors have spent all their credibility.

The real question is how journalists, pharma, doctors, argiculture, the EU, governments, etc. can all regain the credibility that they all worked so hard to destroy.

QFT, beacause I highly doubt anyone will mod you up -- but yes, yes, this is the problem. And I will gently chide you for not posting logged in, as yours was a particularly Informative / Insightful post.

But I still can't reconcile the moon deniers, antivaxxers, flat-earthers and the like with reality. Their spiels raise the same red flags as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Organized Religions in my head. They raise all the woowoo / nutjob red flags. No difference.

I still trust some journos, I still trust some doctors, I still trust some institutions. But I have now, and for the past 2, almost 3 decades developed an intense dislike of the Federal Gov't, large megacorps (GM, GE, Bayer, Walmart, Google, etc etc ad nauseum). To all of the above we are but livestock. To the small merchant, we're still a profit center, but their reach and pervasiveness is less intense than the megacorps.
.
But, I've leaned to think this: "If I do [thing], who benefits? Who makes the money? Who doesn't make the money? Follow the money and you find the charlatans.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

The best solution that we have right now is mandatory vaccinations. But a *better* solution would be more effective vaccinations. Right now, when somebody doesn't vaccinate, they expose three groups of people: Themselves, those who can't get vaccinated, and those who got the vaccines but wren't completely immunized. I have no sympathy for the first group, a fair amount of sympathy for the second, and a lot for the third. If we can find vaccines that are both more effective and can be given to more people, we'll probably get a better result. In the interim, we are seeing some progress toward exactly what you suggest. Although some states are also moving backward so it's a constant fight.

Are you referencing a vaccine that was discontinued in the 70s? The one previous to MMR, which has been through multiple decade long studies across many nations? Yea, you are just spouting the same misinformation that can be found on Facebook.

Let's be *really* clear: Modern vaccines are miracles of science and your concern has been mitigated for over 4 decades. Please stop spreading fear where it's not warranted.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[gweihir]

The measles vaccine is 97% effective with booster shots. You will likely not get much higher. Herd immunity for measles does require 93...95% immunity as it is infectious like crazy. Even a few percent of anti-vaxxers can shift the balance and they do, see the Disney outbreak. So, no, calling for better vaccines is not going to cut it here, even though that would really be a preferable solution.

Source for the herd immunity: https://www.who.int/immunizati...
Source for the Disney thing: https://www.wired.com/2015/01/...

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[gweihir]

I really don't want that step towards the police state. But anti-vaxxers are basically forcing it by ignoring the reality of measles epidemiology. Another thing they get wrong. The measles outbreaks do not happen because the _measles_ want a police state. They are happening because that is how the disease works and because it is infectious like crazy and just a few percent of non-vaccinated people can tip the balance. That means the anti-vaxxers are forcing the hand of the state. Not good at all.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[gweihir]

Well, ACs in general are stupid and you are no exception. Who said anything about putting their parents in prison? You did. The kids in foster-care? You did. Not needed. Simply arrest the whole bunch and set them free again after a 5 minute trip to the next hospital for the kids. I see no need for any punishments either. Punishment has never done anything about stupidity.

Of course, if any of the parents decide that a shoot-out with the police is less risk than the vaccination, that is something else. But in that case they were psychos to begin with.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anubis IV]

I don't think you're taking a big enough view of the issue if you think Facebook bears no responsibility at all.

If a harmful bacteria randomly lands on your skin, it usually isn't able to do much because your skin is already colonized by beneficial bacteria that work hard to fight off any invaders. Those random encounters are generally harmless. But take that same harmful bacteria and put it in a Petri dish, where it has an ample supply of food and doesn't have to compete against other bacteria, and suddenly it'll thrive.

Likewise, harmful misinformation generally doesn't go very far on its own because it doesn't stand up to the casual scrutiny it receives when it's surrounded by competing ideas grounded in evidence and fact. But take that same misinformation and put it in an echo chamber, where it has an ample supply of susceptible minds in which to grow and doesn't have to compete against confounding facts or evidence that would typically stifle its growth, and suddenly it'll thrive.

If Facebook was simply a passive platform on which bad behavior could thrive, you'd be right that we shouldn't blame them any more than we might blame the Petri manufacturer for a mad scientist abusing their dishes. Unfortunately, Facebook is anything but passive. Facebook recognized a long time ago that echo chambers—particularly ones focused on extreme topics—drive user engagement numbers up (i.e. sell more ads), so they built their entire platform around actively steering people into echo chambers that are bereft of contrary facts, evidence, and points of view...the things we as a society have developed as a form of immunity against the spread of misinformation. Put differently, they aren't merely a humble Petri dish manufacturer whose products are being abused: they decided to juice Petri sales by giving away weaponization kits and then dropping immunocompromised individuals in the middle of the contagion zones that inevitably resulted.

You'll excuse me if I think they deserve every bit of blame they get for the fallout that has resulted from them preying on the minds of the weak after purposefully stripping away the natural protections those people should have had.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Trogre]

The best solution that we have right now is mandatory vaccinations.

Yes, and I support this.

BUT

You'd better be sure you have iron-clad security and testing in place along the entire supply chain before mandating vaccines for all.

Any suitably capable foreign aggressor, upon discovering the nation's entire population is making their bloodstream available to a pharma company is likely to go to incredible lengths to infiltrate this supply chain and get, shall we say, creative with the soup.

You'd be amazed what you can do to a person these days with suitable write access to his/her bloodstream.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly. the post office one is particularly ironic because many types of mail are illegal, including pyramid scheme chain letters. The OP is trying to promulgate a dying techno-libertarianism that is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[Anonymous Coward]

but you see, the people spreading disinformation are not necessarily stupid. facebook actually enables them to make money off it. so facebook has some responsibility.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[gweihir]

Bullshit. You drink water, right? Do you know how badly secured that infrastructure is in most of the US? Also bullshit because not everybody is vaccinated at the same time or even the same year. And you also overlook that most people are vaccinated at this time without all the crazy stuff you are demanding.

Seriously, stop living in a fantasy world and start accepting that the real does not work according to your ideas.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[edtice1559]

Was this comment intended as a reply to my post because I don't follow the thread at all. Or if it just an AC that somebody is pasting in at random places.

Re:It wasn't Facebook... it was stupid people.

[edtice1559]

Well I'd love to see a 100% effective vaccine. I concede that MMR is very high. Obviously flu vaccine is very low (but who cares). Others are not at the 97% rate though. But I think we are in agreement on my original point that the only immediately available solution is regulatory.

Facebook is a megaphone

[HangingChad]

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?

Re:Facebook is a megaphone

[gweihir]

Well, if you want to curb that, you first have to stop _all_ religious disinformation, which is all religious publications and advertising.

Re:Facebook is a megaphone

[CrimsonAvenger]

If you're disseminating information that harms people, seriously harms them in some instances, where's the accountability?

And if you have government oversight of what's said in public (and yes, Facebook is a public forum), then you have to first get the First Amendment amended out of the Constitution. Good luck with that.

If you manage that, you have to get the new Public Censors to agree with you in every jot and tittle, or you're going to find yourself banned from saying things in public.

Likewise everyone else. Note that someone (a lot of someones) are going to be on the losing side of the "we must pre-approve everything said in public" reality people seem to be asking for. Unless you're the Public Censor, it's unlikely that you're going to be happy with the result (except on the days they're censoring the people you dislike, instead of censoring you)....

Re:Facebook is a megaphone

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're disseminating information that harms people, seriously harms them in some instances, where's the accountability?

So, for example, when scientists release studies saying diets high in X may be beneficial, but that's refuted 20 years later where X is found to be very harmful, should the scientists be held accountable?

Re:Facebook is a megaphone

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

I mean - you seem to be saying "if you want to stop $THING_X, first you have to stop $THING_Y which seems like a much harder fight." But you haven't explained why that's a prerequisite.

Re:Facebook is a megaphone

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are an ignoramus who thinks that they have found an excuse for their idiocy?

The real show here

[jdavidb]

Is it not obvious to everybody that this show is all being orchestrated to drum up support for censorship?

Re:The real show here

[gweihir]

So you are saying the anti-vaxxers are guilty of enabling censorship with the evil they preach? Makes sense to me.

Not fast enough

[Comboman]

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.

Quick, censor everything!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Quick, censor everything!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupidity is a hard problem to solve.

I don't get my news from Facebook because it is obviously not a reputable source. Why doesn't everyone else do the same? Because they are already stupid. Censoring Facebook, or somehow making it more reputable as a source, won't cure the stupidity of the end-users. These people will just go to some other non-credible source to get their biases confirmed.

There *are* things we could do to help resolve this problem. But they are all quite evil. Like, mandatory sterilization for people who get low scores on IQ tests. Something like an "Internet Driver's License" program that involves granting a degree of access and freedom based on a competency exam. Similar competency exams for other aspects of life. And so on.

Or we could just have another world war and send all our stupid people off to murder each other. That is much more humane.

Smart people look for facts

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Smart people look for facts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Morons just look for confirmation of their misconceptions"

like space nutters?

Re:Smart people look for facts

[gweihir]

What is a "space nutter" according to your definition?

Why is this news?

[pak9rabid]

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?

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Noteworthy, perhaps, because the apple grew legs and walked away from the tree on its own.

Re:Why is this news?

[lactose99]

(slow clap)

Re: Why is this news?

[edris90]

just cuz you're expected to do something doesn't mean you have to do it. So some encouragement at least, helps to keep people giving a s***. May the only things you truly have to do you can't stop yourself from doing even if you try. Having to do something is a description of an involuntary physical compulsion that cannot be suppressed. It's not like anybody has to care about other people's expectations. You can do is show gratitude when they are charitable and donate attention to the concept

Re:Why is this news?

[TigerPlish]

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?

As I read it, it's because a child (barely adult?) had the temerity, the jones, to go against his parent on a controversial hot-button topic which just happens to be click-baity 'news'

Snarky reply: Isn't this how a whole generation or three of kids were raised (Late-X, Millenials and Y?) I showed up! I got a trophy for showing up! Yay me! I'm thpecial! Look at me! Participation awards! I'm a thpecial and unique snowflake!

No you're not. You're not a special and unique snowflake. From 10 inches up y'all look exactly the same.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

I have not started my taxes you insensitive clod. So sad.. :-(

Re:Why is this news?

[pak9rabid]

Ain't that the truth. Jeez, I remember seeing many of my peers just getting handed everything they wanted over from their parents, whereas I had to work & buy anything that I wanted. I remember thinking "man, these people are going to be fucked when they grow up"...low and behold, here we are.

Re:Why is this news?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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?

Lucky you I don't have mod points to vote your ignorant posting down. Last time I did that though, I didn't get any mod points for a very long time. I'd still risk it here. OK, here's the explanation. There's no requirement for an adult to get vaccinated. So adults aren't "expected to do" this because most adults already did this as kids. He's getting attention because he's standing up to his ignorant parents (seems like this is all mother driven though - dad doesn't seem to care one way or another and seems to just be giving in to his wife because this is just THE BIGGEST DEAL EVER to her) and the media is hoping that stupid anti-vax people might rethink their position if one of their own did this on his own. Of course, no anti-vax person is going to change their mind because as another post pointed out, proving people wrong with facts just makes them even more determined than ever that they are right.

Re:Why is this news?

[jeff4747]

Isn't this how a whole generation or three of kids were raised (Late-X, Millenials and Y?) I showed up! I got a trophy for showing up! Yay me! I'm thpecial! Look at me! Participation awards! I'm a thpecial and unique snowflake!

So, the massive stupidity on your talking point here is that the kids weren't giving themselves trophies. They were kids. The adults were the ones handing out the participation trophies. Because the adults couldn't handle their child not getting recognition.

If you think something is wrong with "the kids these days", you have to remember you raised them.

Re:Why is this news?

[TigerPlish]

If you think something is wrong with "the kids these days", you have to remember you raised them.

I have no offspring, nor do I want to. So bbbzzzzt, wrong.

Your point, though, is valid. Idiots raising coddled, overprotected kids that cannot cope.

Now.. imagine the carnage in 20 years when those very same kids you're defending become parents.

Who knows, maybe they'll do allright after taking long looks in the mirror and talking things through with whatever support mechanisms they have.

Re:Why is this news?

[jwhyche]

I just filed my taxes, where's my standing ovation?

I filed mine weeks ago, and already got my refund. Why is it taking you this long to get around to it?

disclaimer for the humorless: Yes, I'm just messing with him.

facebook is not a source

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:facebook is not a source

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Microsoft Outlook filter and reorder your inbox based on what you are most likely to "interact" with (remembering that clicking "spam" is just as much "interaction" as clicking "favorite")?

Does Microsoft Outlook hide emails that you are not likely to "interact" with?

Does Microsoft Outlook allow companies to pay to be at the top of your inbox based on the content of all of your previous emails?

Then no it's not the same.

Re:facebook is not a source

[TigerPlish]

Does Microsoft Outlook allow companies to pay to be at the top of your inbox based on the content of all of your previous emails?

Yahoo Mail does. (Unless you run an adblocker.)

Please, don't give MS any ideas on how to further monetize Office.

But "she's not stupid"

[grasshoppa]

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.

Re:But "she's not stupid"

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Hate to tell you this, but even intelligent people can fall prey to cognitive traps like confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and groupthink, where they adopt the beliefs of their community regardless of whether those beliefs are true or not.

You've probably got some incorrect beliefs yourself, if you bothered to put them all up for scrutiny. But that's it, many people don't have time to bother.

--PeterM

Re:But "she's not stupid"

[kqs]

He also said his mother wasn't stupid. These two positions are in direct conflict with each other.

No, sadly, I know many very intelligent people who intentionally believe stupid things. Some of them know they are intelligent so they believe they cannot be wrong. Others "follow their tribe" and never examine their assumptions. It's less stupidity, it's a lack of humility. It's an inability to think "maybe I'm wrong; I'll look at the evidence and/or listen to the experts who have looked at the evidence."

Re:But "she's not stupid"

[grasshoppa]

In my world, intelligence means skepticism. Always checking your information, always checking your biases. Recognizing your own failings as semi-mobile meat-suit.

Being right hardly has anything to do with it. More like "being right eventually". The process is how I define intelligence, not the end result. The end result is almost irrelevant, or a foregone conclusion, as long as the process is coherent.

Let's blame everybody

[DigitalJanitor]

"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.

Human nature

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

Re:Human nature

[mark-t]

When they are 18, they don't need parental consent.

Before they are 18, they do... there won't be any "sneaking behind parent's backs" in this case, unless the people administering the vaccinations to rebellious kids are doing so without state endorsed approval, and believe me, that's the *LAST* thing you want to be encouraging.

Facebook doesnt...

[Vanyle]

Facebook doesn't stop vaccinations, parents do.

Re:Facebook doesnt...

[jeff4747]

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.

Re:Facebook doesnt...

[Vanyle]

huh my joke was that bad, eh?

Facebook needs shutdown.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's just no other option really.

Illegal immigration harm

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal immigration causes MUCH MORE harm than anti-vaxxers. To the tune of 49,000 violent attacks on US citizens a year.
We have a political party running on increasing these numbers and making the problem worse. Yet I don't hear you making an issue about that.

So when people don't care what you have to say about this issue, just remember the above and your stance on it. You don't really care, but you think they are all GOP supporters and think attacking them is cool. Reality is most anti-vaxxers vote for the DNC, the party of ignorance and corruption. Deep red states have highest vaccination rates.

I think that is more likely to change your tune than actual harm caused by anti-vaxxers, which means you don't actually care.

Re:Illegal immigration harm

[jeff4747]

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.

Re:Illegal immigration harm

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Illegal immigration harm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Home of the airheaded Jesus freaks and a corral for the lowest common denominator.

FaceBook + Instagram = FBI

Acronym

[Anonymous Coward]

Foolish Advice Center Easily Baffles Obscenely Oblivious Kooks

Anti-vaxers are stupid, but people who think Faceb

[bistromath007]

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.

A man thinking for himself

[hey!]

... 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.

Re:A man thinking for himself

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Shut up you!
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. "
Men in Black

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw

Re:A man thinking for himself

[Howitzer86]

The Internet can make it seem like you're encircled by opposition, but when it's so easy to create hundreds of sock puppet accounts, it's worth it to sit back and ask yourself if you're arguing with real individuals, or an agenda that wants to look like it has more support than it actually has.

Re:A man thinking for himself

[Anonymous Coward]

If you disagree with *everyone* around you, chances are you're wrong

No, the one person who actually thought about the issue is often right. But we evolved when social cohesion was more important than being right.

Re:A man thinking for himself

[hey!]

I'll do one better: A man more right than his neighbors is a majority of one.

Which is great, except that it's really, really hard to tell the difference between being right and being stubborn. You can't live your life by slogans, you've got to examine the corner cases.

Really smart people have a special brand of foolishness that comes from getting too used to being more right than the people around them. Literally the smartest person I know (of many, many smart people) once had an affair with a married man who she was *certain* was going to leave his wife. You don't have to be smart to fall into that trap, but the different wrinkle is that if you argued with her, *she'd win*, even though it was perfectly obvious she was wrong.

It turned out, by the way, that we were *both* wrong. He did leave his wife, but for another man, which *nobody* was expecting. It goes to show you that your belief is only as good as the information you have. That's why when other people disagree with you, you should listen. They may know, purely by chance, things you don't.

Re:A man thinking for himself

[hey!]

Confucius's students came to him one day and told him that one of his rival sages claimed to think three times before making any important decision. The master replied, "Twice is enough."

Over the centuries there have been many interpretations of the cryptic remark, but this is the one I subscribe to: if you're barking up the wrong tree, barking harder and longer won't scare the varmint out of the branches. A thoughtful person, when he takes a second look at a question, opens up entire new avenues to explore. A stubborn person just chases his own tail.

Re:A man thinking for himself

[hey!]

I don't include Internet arguments in this, because people (a) don't know what they're talking about and (b) aren't who they say and (c) often don't actually believe what they say. I'm talking about meatspace where everyone knows each other and have direct knowledge of the question at hand. If everyone disagrees with you, you ought to consider very seriously that you're the one who's wrong. Of course because of groupthink, you may be right.

Re:A man thinking for himself

[Kjella]

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.

Except that's not really what's happening, that's more what you had with old mass media where millions of people would get brainwashed by the same propaganda. Social media is different, it's people hooking up with the 1% to 0.01% who think like they do and creating lots of tiny echo chambers. All you need is a few hundred people who think like you and you can have a social media feed to fill your day making it seem like everyone agrees with you. It warps people's conceptions of what is normal and what society at large thinks to the point that they often think neutral sources and public polls are lying because they can't reconcile the impression they have in the echo chamber with the outside world. Before you actually got exposed to what a random mix of the population thought, whether you wanted it or not. That wasn't all good and society could be very narrow minded, but at least you had your bearings right.

Re:A man thinking for himself

[Anonymous Coward]

I can smell sock puppets... They'll argue a point, but have certain patterns of behaviour. Certain turns of phrase, and never ever concede a point even when it agrees with their premise. For example: NASA says H20 is the #1 greenhouse gas. So I tried to point out that we're dumping trillions of tons of hot steam into the atmosphere and NASA's GOES 13 satellite feed clearly shows it creating cloud cover. We do this every day. Clouds blanket the planet, create greenouse effect. Everyone's afraid of CO2 increasing temperature not because CO2 holds much heat, but because that will add more evaporated water to the air which will cause vastly more warming... but there are ZERO "climate change" studies which look into impact of 100+ years of dumping hot steam into the sky with (wet surface air coolers) at power plants.

So, a no-named account who champions "climate change" appears and calls me a conspiracy theorist, tells me to chase the illuminati, take my meds, calls me crazy... then claims the water doesn't stay in the air.

Right,the steam causes rain, that's weather modification, and 100+ years of this is called.... drum roll please... "Climate Change". In fact the CO2 problem would do the same thing: Add more water vapour to the air, create a hotter climate. So if they care about climate change and air pollution, why then would they refuse to even consider the warming effect of trillions of tons of water vapor pumped into the sky? It's obviously a sock puppet account I'm arguing with. Others who saw the argument clicked the links I provided and some admitted that the info should be looked into and admitted that it was strange that it seems "climate science" totally igonres Big Power's contribution of steam -- ignoring literally dumping hot air into the climate, while claiming about warmer air is suspicious to say the least...

Anyone can see there's something rotten in Denmark with regard to Climate Science. I'm saying there's more to climate change than CO2 -- it may even be a red herring. We could reverse 100+ years of CO2 production, but the hot steam we release all day every day will continue the climate change. People will point "climate change deniers" and claim they shill for "Big Oil", "Big Coal", etc. but these industries actually pay shills to promote CO2 scaremongering to distract from what's really going on -- Geoengineering:

http://southtexasweathermodification.com/ (here's my local weather modification association website)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XoGHwnkEaU (and a video of them modifying the weather by using silver iodide delivered by air planes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6IpijS8mw&t=126s (and video from NASA sats showing steam production used to create clouds and rain)
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

What's the fix for "CO2"? Well, it's the application of the Hegelian Dialectic: To get people to accept a solution first: Create a problem, Then: stir up concern, Finally: People to accept the solution you provide. So, what happens is that we create the problem by 100+ years of geoengineering, gov want folks to pay for it though (but also to use it to create disaster floods to rule citizens with an iron fist), so Govs scare people about "CO2" and "Climate Change", and finally people will beg to pay for "Geoengineering" to save us from the warming (which geoengineering created). Now, you can believe this or not, but there's evidence to support all my claims. We started weather modification in the early 1900's using towers on hills to dispense silver iodide before aeroplanes were reliable...

Now, most people who have only researched a bit of the Academic propaganda about Climate Change will shout "Tinfoil Hatter" and laugh about "Chem Trails", but cloud seeding exists and there are weather modification associations nation wide. Hell, China showed off their rocket based systems when they held the Olympics in Beijing. Most folks don't know that funds given for research in Academia are earmarked for very specific research. The

The real issue

[Murdoch5]

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.

Re:The real issue

[jwhyche]

Because then they start whining about their "god given rights" to be stupid. Which is another pet peeve of mine. There is no such thing as "god given rights." But anyway, just let them be stupid, just make sure they can't affect any one else.

Re:The real issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Shrinks consider themselves medical professionals ... and they pimp Ritalin to unruly kids and hoe gaffotry to teens. Mebby some medical professionals systematically do not advise well. I'm quite pro-VAX, but elevating physicians power beyond their station will come to a bad end.

Re:The real issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Give them the choice of (a) being vaccinated against or (b) being infected with whatever the disease in question is. You get the choice (where being vaccinated is a medically valid option) of having your children (a) vaccinated against Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (for example) or being infected with Measles Mumps and Rubella.

Bullshit

[Bruha]

FB has not been around 18 years.

Re:Bullshit

[mark-t]

Where did you get the impression that the kid's mom refused to allow him to get vaccinated 18 years ago, or that her attitude about vaccines was 18 years old?

Re: Anti-vaxers are stupid, but people who think F

[bistromath007]

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."

He's 18...

[buffcleb]

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...

stupid kid

[Anonymous Coward]

It shows how stupid kids below 25 years are....

Except....

[xlsior]

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.

I kind of hate this kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So...follow the money?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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?

Re:So...follow the money?

[thejynxed]

They already curate to an astonishing degree, how they haven't lost their safe harbor provision under the DMCA is a bit puzzling. Then again, maybe it's because the big content companies have decided to give them a "pass" since so much of their promotional garbage is posted there prominently.

Unfortuately there appears to be no cure

[neo-mkrey]

for stupid.

FB has deep pockets

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Facebook lets it spread

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Facebook lets it spread

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

But the topic is about fault. On what basis are your moms actions the fault of facebook?

Why not the fault of the US founding fathers on that same basis? They created the 1st amendment to ensure everyone has a voice. It's one of the reasons facebook can even exist in the first place.

Those were her actions, and her responsibility for them. As shitty as that might sound given she's no longer with us, that fact still remains.

It isn't up to facebook to choose a persons path in life. It shouldn't be the governments either.
It is supposed to be up to each of us as individuals to make that choice for ourselves, and each of us is held responsible and/or given credit for the results of those actions.

I mean, being your mother, you are closer to her in most every way compared to facebook.
Your thinking leads to the question of why you let her choose her own actions and not force your ways on her.
facebook should have far less responsibility to force her to do their bidding.

And no, I'm not actually suggesting you should have forced anything on her or anyone else. That's just a comparison to point out why facebook should be even more removed from forcing a choice on her than you would be.
Your thinking leads to the fact you are more responsible than facebook over your mothers choices.
My thinking is neither of you should be responsible for her choices.

Many points missed in all of this ....

[King_TJ]

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!

Re:Many points missed in all of this ....

[k6mfw]

If government DEMANDS you get all those vaccines, ...

Seems to me back in the days when vaccines were typical, there was no anti-vaxxers and nobody had to worry about polio, it was also when pharma companies were not out to bankrupt much of the population. It was simply civic duty to get your kids vaccinated as was regularly attending your VFW and Rotary Club meetings. But these days maybe not worry about a vaccine causing autism but FDA (with a director who worked as a lobbyist for drug companies) says must have mandatory vaccine containing opioids or some other goofy requirement.

Re:Many points missed in all of this ....

[jeff4747]

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.

Except for several laws and FDA regulations that require any NEW vaccines to be as safe or effective.

But it is a very pretty strawman. I like what you did with the hat.

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?

Then we'd already be extinct.

We're exposed to a truly unfathomable quantity of different pathogens every day, and our immune system just handles it. We vaccinate against a very, very small percentage of those pathogens because they are particularly bad when you are exposed to the full-strength virus. We are in no danger of "overwhelming" our immune system by exposing it to dead viruses, weakened viruses or bits of virus protein. Long-term immunity is not like a thumbdrive with a limited storage.

Re:Many points missed in all of this ....

[Whorhay]

One of the common complaints though is that the FDA seems to fail at its job disturbingly often. Just look at how many drugs end up being recalled because they do more harm than good. With vaccines this is exacerbated by the fact that you can't go after the company in civil court if it hurt your child. There is a special legal system setup specifically to protect the producers of the vaccines. To make things more complicated doctors are pushed to administer vaccines on a short schedule with multiple shots per visit. In the event a child does react negatively to a vaccine trying to figure out which one caused the problem is complicated by the scheduling. All that said I'm for mandatory vaccination, but I can understand why people have concerns about it.

Re:Many points missed in all of this ....

[jeff4747]

One of the common complaints though is that the FDA seems to fail at its job disturbingly often.

That complaint comes from people who do not understand a study of a thousand people can not find all possible interactions with any new medication. The interactions that are found later involve a combination of drugs that just didn't happen in the initial study.....and result in the FDA ordering the drug pulled.

Just look at how many drugs end up being recalled because they do more harm than good

No, they still did plenty of good. And the vast majority who got the drugs did benefit. They had an interaction that didn't happen to occur in the human trials, because it is impossible to test every possible drug/medical condition interaction. That's why new drugs are prescription-only - your doctor is supposed to monitor for such interactions.

Literally every drug is a poison. Including the ones you think are "safe". It's just the dose that makes it "safe".

With vaccines this is exacerbated by the fact that you can't go after the company in civil court if it hurt your child.

You're misrepresenting the situation here. You can't go after the company because you can go after the government. The government claims liability for vaccine injuries and even has a special fund and claim program set up so you don't have to actually sue.

To make things more complicated doctors are pushed to administer vaccines on a short schedule with multiple shots per visit. In the event a child does react negatively to a vaccine trying to figure out which one caused the problem is complicated by the scheduling.

They're only given in the same visit after the vaccines have been proven safe in the overall population. They don't just throw a new one in when they feel like it.

Re:Many points missed in all of this ....

[Whorhay]

Yes, you would be compensated by the government if you won in the special system setup specifically to handle those cases. That system though is designed to limit your chances, not that I can blame the government for making it that way. Otherwise the system would be ripe for defrauding the government.

Safe overall is small comfort to a parent trying to minimize risk for their baby. From what our doctor told us the vaccine schedule is strongly influenced by the fear that parents would skip or be unable to bring their child in for all the appointments of individual vaccination shots. And that similarly the Chicken Pox vaccine was made mandatory simply to force insurance companies into covering it.

Re:Many points missed in all of this ....

[jeff4747]

That system though is designed to limit your chances

Then sue the government instead. The existence of the vaccine injury program does not mean you are required to use it.

Safe overall is small comfort to a parent trying to minimize risk for their baby.

As the parent of two young children, no it really isn't. It's only difficult if you trust the people trying to sell you snakeoil instead of the scientists and doctors.

From what our doctor told us the vaccine schedule is strongly influenced by the fear that parents would skip or be unable to bring their child in for all the appointments of individual vaccination shots

Again, they don't just throw a new vaccine in for fun. They only give the vaccines at the same time when they've been given independently for a long time.

The schedule is also an age range, not a specific date. So if you don't understand how the immune system works and want to make extra trips to the doctor to alleviate your misinformation, go ahead. No one will stop you.

And that similarly the Chicken Pox vaccine was made mandatory simply to force insurance companies into covering it.

Well, chickenpox is actually not nearly as safe as we pretended when we were children. About 2 in 1000 cases require hospitalization, about 1 in 60,000 are fatal. And it confers immunity to shingles, which itself causes hospitalizations and death (about 1-4% of cases require hospitalization.)

Golly, what a terrible thing to include in the vaccine schedule!!!! :eyeroll:

What suppression?

[DogDude]

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.

Calling bullshit. Facebook is 15, he is 18

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents had their mind made up before his first shot was suppose to happen and before facebook

Re: Calling bullshit. Facebook is 15, he is 18

[aliquis]

He's 18. Of course he doesn't know.

The numbers here don't add up

[taustin]

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.

Re:Anti-vaxers are stupid, but people who think Fa

[jeff4747]

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.

I think we're in "Fire in a theater" territory

[rsilvergun]

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.

false cries for peace

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re: false cries for peace

[Anonymous Coward]

Rage harder cuck boy.

Re: false cries for peace

[bistromath007]

Jesus, are you my landlord? You don't even read the shit you're replying to, you just figure out which team it's for and go apeshit.

Re: false cries for peace

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want peace, I want people like you gone.

Re: false cries for peace

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think it doesn't matter. It's past the stage where anything anyone said actually matter anymore. Nobody can agree what's intelligent anymore.

Are these people who are anti-VAX

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro-Alpha?

Sorta

[rsilvergun]

From one of TFAs:

So after examining the power of untestable beliefs, what have we learned about dealing with human psychology? We have learned that bias is a disease and to fight it we need a healthy treatment of facts and education. We find that when facts are injected into the conversation, the symptoms of bias become less severe. But, unfortunately, we have also learned that facts can only do so much. To avoid coming to undesirable conclusions, people can fly from the facts and use other tools in their deep, belief-protecting toolbox. With the disease of bias, then, societal immunity is better achieved when we encourage people to accept ambiguity, engage in critical thinking and reject strict ideology.

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.

and?

[Hugh Jorgen]

At 18 he is an adult, nothing to see here, carry on.

Is it just me

[rsilvergun]

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...

Vaccine Damage Compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Penalty! False Start 20 yards

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Fact Rated sources and reputation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Stop being pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Cause they're broken too

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be argued that those people are also broken and need not reproduce.

Re:Anti-vaxers are stupid, but people who think Fa

[bistromath007]

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.

uhh

[buddyglass]

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.

teen says...

[mapkinase]

slashdot posts..

humans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

if you don't like god

[gDLL]

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.

Re:if you don't like god

[jwhyche]

You have no "natural rights" ether. There is no such thing as natural, god given, odin given, zeus, or lucifer given rights. Any rights that you think you have that you think came from god(s) can be taken away from you with the stroke of a pen. All rights that you have come from government and society and are subject to the whims of that society.

Facebook... yet again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus wept.

And if the answer to that is "no"?

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

you're wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The Pentavirate and WWN

[TheSouthernDandy]

underscored the importance of "credible" information.

https://youtu.be/g5vnZec964c?t...>Amen!

How is that a right?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Vaccines should be like the draft

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Climb into the petri dish

[mnemotronic]

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.

More are vaccinated in Latin America than US

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

Even smart people are subject to conf. bias

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

Human nature not so bad

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

I'm inclined to take a harder line

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

We don't easily let people out of the draft

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

Take your tribalism and stuff it

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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!

Autism and pesticides

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

Re:Autism and pesticides

[Aighearach]

Absolutely not. I think, instead, money for studies should go to attempting to answer known questions. Otherwise, why is money being specifically earmarked? Let researchers do the "blue sky" parts from their normal budgets, and then when they think they have something that matters, fund a specific study.

If you're trying to do what I suggested above, don't waste money that is supposed to go to science; instead hire some writers and anthropologists to create some bullshit from whole cloth, and then work backwards and make some bullshit fake studies.

Where people live is a total crap correlation to care about for discovering the root causes of things. The root causes should be analyzed where the exposure is high first; do the children of people working in the pesticide factories have a super-high rate of autism? That's what you'd see if it was from pesticides. Then it would make sense to look at community exposure. But doing that backwards is idiotic; poor people get most diseases at an increased rate, so of course living on shitty land is going to correlate with all the diseases.

Examples of the correct order of study is as with lead poisoning or asbestos exposure; people who work with it were found to have serious health problems, which led to an understanding of the problems, which then led to studies of how the public is affected by lower levels of exposure. In the case of lead, it turns out lots of poor people were affected, and it even shows up in crime rates and things. But those effects are too small to have ever been able to lead backwards to an understanding of lead poisoning on their own without the knowledge from the more serious exposure cases.

The autism/vaccination myth is hard to attack, because it is manufactured under conditions where the factory workers aren't directly exposed to it. So mythological bullshit seems possible at the surface level in a way that something like pesticides can't compete with.

And anyways, you're probably better with a non-science-based counter-conspiracy; follow the money to Bad Scary People and expose that, instead of what we have now for messaging which is, "throw rotten fruit at that one guy who lied for money, and point at a corporation that also does good things and complain that they use money for PR." None of that pulls hard on emotional strings, and the complaints aren't even very accessible to the sort of people who buy the conspiracy theories. You need heavyweight bullshit, not something that sounds good to some clever smart guy.

Spot the obvious mistake

[Sparrowhawk7]

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).

Dead child from whooping cough

[PeterM from Berkeley]

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

Utter Bullshit, and Provably So.

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

See: Robert F Kennedy Jr in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

it depends...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
 

It was Chrome's fault!

[PatrickRusk]

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".

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.'"

...

The one type of crime where context

[Anonymous Coward]

(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.

Re:The one type of crime where context

[jeff4747]

Because violent crime actually hurts people, usually irreparably. Overstaying a tourist visa doesn't.

Because it's the one type of crime that is 100% preventable

The vast majority of undocumented people in the US are here because they stayed beyond the end of their perfectly legal and valid visa.

So it is not close to 100% preventable without a police state that you will find unacceptable. Police constantly saying "Papers Please!" is required to catch the majority. And even then, people will have false papers.

Skin color does not matter. Language does not matter

It matters when the people claiming it is "100% preventable" are only looking at people with one skin color and speak one language, and seek moronic solutions like a wall that only blocks one border.

and no illegal alien can possibly exist in the USA for long without comitting additional crimes like identity theft and welfare fraud.

Wow have no idea what you're talking about.

First, undocumented people don't make welfare claims. They are seeking to minimize interaction with the government, because interactions with the government is how they get caught. So no "welfare fraud" when you don't make any claims. Also, welfare doesn't exist anymore. It was eliminated in the 1990s. But it's still used as a boogeyman for people who want to demonize the poor because folks like you already bought into the lies about "welfare queens", so they're gonna keep running with it. Re-branding is so hard.

Second, there's plenty of employers who will happily pay in cash. If an employer insists on paying by check, you can take that check to the employer's bank to cash it for free. Or use a myriad of check-cashing places that will gouge the employee. Thus no false identity required.

Nowledge kills!

[Anonymous Coward]

Air gives you cancer!
(hands over shopping-bag)

Credible source

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What's With Blaming the Medium

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Australia put financial penalties on antivaxxers

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put financial penalties on antivaxxers like Australia, problem solved.
https://www.pri.org/stories/australia-a-penalties-anti-vaxxers

wait....

[Anonymous Coward]

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?