Slashdot Mirror


Teen Who Defied Anti-Vax Mom Says She Got False Information From One Source: Facebook (washingtonpost.com)

An 18-year-old from Ohio who famously inoculated himself against his mother's wishes in December says he attributes his mother's anti-vaccine ideology to a single source: Facebook [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. From a report: Ethan Lindenberger, a high school senior, testified Tuesday before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and underscored the importance of "credible" information. In contrast, he said, the false and deep-rooted beliefs his mother held -- that vaccines were dangerous -- were perpetuated by social media. Specifically, he said, she turned to anti-vaccine groups on social media for evidence that supported her point of view. In an interview with The Washington Post on Tuesday, Lindenberger said Facebook, or websites that were linked on Facebook, is really the only source his mother ever relied on for her anti-vaccine information.

5 of 376 comments (clear)

  1. I too like to live dangerously by cordovaCon83 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  2. Re:So...what's the point? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What right is being taken away here? The right to be wrong? The right to believe any bullshit no matter how insane? The right to be an utter moron that's easily convinced because he's too stupid to tell when he's being bullshitted?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:So...what's the point? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:So...what's the point? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  5. Re: So...what's the point? by fazig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?