| |
| ▲ | trhway 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So censoring falsehoods is good, and censoring truth is bad, and you're the one who decides which is which, and you like such censorship working your way. And when censorship you'd just liked so much starts to be used against you, you start to whine. Millenia old story of a deal with devil. And by the way the covid "fact checking" wasn't based on "truth", it was at political request of White House as Zuck later said, and he did later called the FB fact checking a censorship when disbanding it. | | |
| ▲ | jamwil 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On matters of science the scientists decide which is which. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | On all matters reality decides which is which. None of us have a psychic link to God (anyone who thinks he does, does not, and should be institutionalised), but there are many good heuristics for what is true, and we do not have to abandon the concept of truth. | | |
| ▲ | jamwil an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think we agree but those heuristics… That is the scientific method. That’s all we got. | | |
| ▲ | danudey 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 99% of climate scientists: human-triggered climate change is real 1% of climate scientists: climate change is probably just something that happens and we can't do anything about it Legacy media: it's important that we give equal time to both sides of this argument. Social media: climate change is a lie and you can tell because 99% of climate scientists all agree that it's real! That's how you know it's a conspiracy! You can't trust the institution! Also buy these supplements, they cure covid and cancer and chemtrails! We're doomed. |
|
| |
| ▲ | southerntofu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Disclaimer: i'm far from an anti-vaxxer and i have a scientific background (though not in biology). It's often hard to establish scientific consensus. When it's not hard, it can take a long time. Cases such as climate change are as easy as it gets: models are always a flawed approximation for reality, but denying climate change on a scientific basis is almost impossible nowadays because we have too much data and too many converging studies. About a century ago, the "scientific" consensus in the western world was that there were different human races with very different characteristics, and phrenology was considered a science. The question of who establishes the ground truth, and who checks the checkers still stands. Science advances by asking sometimes inconvenient, sometimes outright weird questions. And sometimes the answers provided are plain wrong (but not for obvious reasons or malice), which is why reproducibility is so important. I don't think any entity should have the power to prevent people from questioning the status quo. Especially since censorship feeds into the mindset of the conspiracy theorists and their real truth that "THEY" don't want you to see. | | |
| ▲ | jamwil an hour ago | parent [-] | | There’s a difference between questioning the status quo and spreading obvious misinformation. Did the vaccine save lives? Yes. Did misinformation about the vaccine cost lives? Yes it did. | | |
| ▲ | southerntofu an hour ago | parent [-] | | For sure, in retrospect. At the time, Pfizer representatives in front of the EU parliament would not testify that their vaccines actually worked. And there are laws to requisition supplies and strip medical patents as public health measures. The fact that so much money was given to private corporations, in secret deals outside any legal proceedings, on unproven products, all while censoring any critics, really gave the conspiracy theorists water for their mill. I believe they would have had a much harder time spreading their misinformation, if they couldn't have the street cred of having "the system" against them. That is, if we had the voice of doctors vs random loonies, instead of our respective corrupt governments vs anyone they're trying to censor. | | |
| ▲ | jamwil an hour ago | parent [-] | | The overwhelming consensus of both the scientific community and the medical community was clear as crystal, and in retrospect, correct. There were plenty of doctors speaking up; there was only one side of this argument that was too busy throwing paint at ER nurses to listen. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | like_any_other an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Interesting that you only state the palatable part, and omit the part where we empower those scientists [1] to censor the digital public square. [1] The government decides which scientists specifically. | |
| ▲ | trhway 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | and you are the one to decide that this science we should ignore, and instead we declare as the truth the lies that these lying through their teeth bastards are telling. You do like the "gold standard of science", RFK Junior and Trump edition, don't you? The same censorship as you like. Btw, how many top world infectious diseases scientists were among FB “fact checkers”? |
| |
| ▲ | danudey 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Zuck is opposed to any sort of regulation of misinformation and lies because that sort of content drives engagement and that's what makes him money. If people on social media weren't allowed to post outright falsehoods then the entire right-wing rage machine would collapse in on itself and social media companies' KPIs would tank. |
|
|
