YouTube Bans Coronavirus Vaccine Misinformation (reuters.com) 152
YouTube said this week it would remove videos from YouTube containing misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, expanding its current rules against falsehoods and conspiracy theories about the pandemic. From a report: The video platform said it would now ban any content with claims about COVID-19 vaccines that contradict consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization. YouTube said in an email that this would include removing claims that the vaccine will kill people or cause infertility, or that microchips will be implanted in people who receive the vaccine.
going to remove most of the trump videos? (Score:3, Insightful)
going to remove most of the trump videos?
Re: (Score:2)
Well the president of the United States could actually be a leader, provide the citizens with honest and useful information. Vs. Trying to minimize it, because he thinks it makes him look bad.
Trump is no leader, he has no experience actually leading, he was only a Boss because his dad gave him a bunch of money.
Perhaps because I have worked with people like Trump, that this man is mentally ill seems obvious to me, that his narcissism is getting in the way of implementing any helpful and long term changes in
Re: (Score:1)
They have trial vaccines that neither they nor anyone else can demonstrate the efficacy of, nor are they able to produce data at this time showing their vaccines are safe. They have just done an end-run around any trials, and potentially putting people at risk. So, in short, we don't know if they have an actual vaccine against COVID-19, we don't know if its safe, we don't know how long any immunity lasts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't run trials that quickly. That's a simple fact. Maybe their vaccine works without harmful side effects, maybe it doesn't. You don't know, and, frankly, neither do they.
Re: (Score:2)
Every setback has been reported by the companies developing the vaccines as being typical of the process. Western countries are taking the cautious approach simply because that's the only way to determine the efficacy of the vaccine. There's no hurrying this. It isn't speculation, it's how developing vaccines works, and China and Russia are being grossly irresponsible in rushing through vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
it's how developing vaccines works in the United States
FTFY. We are not the only country in the world, other nations don't have as many lawyers as we do so progress is much quicker. Peru is going to be distributing the Chinese vaccine next month, I think Bolivia is going with the Russian one.
Re: (Score:2)
And pretty much every other industrialized country is working with similar protocols. The Chinese are not. If Peru wants to be part of an early experiment, that's their business. I think it's insane, but just because some countries panic and imagine that making shortcuts in testing is worth the risk, doesn't mean everyone follows suit. There's a reason these protocols are in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Panic? My wife's relatives and their neighbors are dropping like flies. There may be something genetic that makes Andean people more susceptible, but she's lost at least 8 extended relatives, and a dozen or so people in the neighborhood where she grew up. Young, old, healthy, infirm, it doesn't seem to make much difference. One of her brothers has gotten it twice (and survived, fortunately, although he's still weak two months later.) In a country of only 33 million they've already lost over 33,500 peop
Re: (Score:2)
Bog the company down in court until they cough up money to make them go away, I thought that was obvious.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I know you're suffering from TDS - but Trump has NEVER said that the vaccine will kill you nor be a cover for implanting a chip.
No, he just called the corona virus outbreak a hoax. As for Trump claiming the vaccine will kill you, give the poor guy some time will you, this is they man who told people to inject bleach. He'll get to trashing the vaccine eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
this is they man who told people to inject bleach. - False. [politifact.com]
Expected reaction. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for providing a quote. I will now demonstrate reading comprehension skills, using that quote:
Snip:
"And is there a way..."
This phrasing indicates that the following stat
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the clip, it's clear to me that he was guessing and asking if injecting disinfectant would be a possible cure. It was a dumb thing to say, he hadn't thought it through like a lot of the things he says.
I'm saying this as someone who hates his guts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey there Trump supporter, how come you're posting as Anonymous Coward instead of as a logged-in account and owning your caustic and vitriolic comments supporting Trump and disparaging those who oppose Trump, hmmm? Care to explain that? Are you ashamed of your choices?
Hey there fellow board member, how come you're responding with the exact same caustic and vitriolic attacks? Care to explain WHY you went with "shame" and attacking anonymity as a valid response to this?
Yeah. YOUR bullshit, IS the reason civil discourse, is dying. The parent may not have been "supporting" Trump at all with this response, which was nothing more than an attempt to clarify. You should be ashamed for being a complete fucking hypocrite here, but I already know you're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, sure. I have to be MEEK and MILD and TURN THE OTHER CHEEK and just let assholes post their bullshit (read as: STFU and let the bullies and the assholes just scream and yell and drown out everyone else, especially when they won't put their own goddamned names to it). Screw you. 'Civil Discourse' died in 2016, we've been without it for 4 years now. Maybe next year it'll come back. Maybe you've had your head in the sand so long that you haven't noticed that. Maybe you're one of the screaming yelling bullies who just want to drown everyone else out and silence people who don't agree with them. I had enough of that shit a long time ago IF YOU DIDN'T NOTICE ALREADY. We're WAY, WAY past the point of 'civil discourse' on the Internets, friend. Oh and before you get all righteously indignated at *me*: You just counterattacked *me*.
I asked you a valid question, hypocrite. Ignorance and stupidity want to label that as an "attack". Civil discourse died between stupid people, not mature adults who know how to communicate maturely.
Thank you, for clarifying your capabilities. No, no need to respond. You in your infinite wisdom have already confirmed why civil discourse is dead for you. Well that, and the idiotic assumption that Trump caused all of this, or that Joe Brainfart would fix it. Neither of these two idiots are worthy of the
Re: (Score:2)
He expects me to self-doxx so they can attack me in real life
Get fucked.
What's next? You going to go all 'Internet Tough Guy' on me and threaten to beat me up? LOLOLOLOLOLOL xD xD xD
Re: (Score:2)
He thinks anyone uses their real name online
Fuck you idiot
Re: (Score:2)
When are you fucking morons going to get it through your heads: SOCIAL MEDIA DOES NOT HAVE TO ALLOW *ANYTHING AT ALL*. You don't like it? DON'T USE IT ANYMORE!
Are you AOL users and think that Twitter and Facebook are the ENTIRE internet!? You're incapable of going to the goddamned New York Post we
Re: (Score:2)
Those social media companies do not report anything, but they contain links to the originals - people cannot share the NYP story on them because even the link to it is now banned.
One day, maybe they'll do the same for all regular links on all websites and you'll be shouting "you don't have to use it" whilst something akin to China's firewall gets put in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to slow up and switch to decaf for awhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, the con artist has done more unmasking in each year [rawstory.com] of his reign than Obama did. By far. Looks like it's time for another investigation of all this illegal activity.
Re: (Score:3)
It appears there is something to note. That the act of requesting 'unmasking' in order to make sense of security reported data in of itself is not illegal, but common for all presidents, it is if it is abused.
So, it appears both Obama and Trump requested it legally as is their purvue, but some allegations were made that the Obama administration abused this and did illegal things with this info.
If they were found not to be guilty of this with an investigation then good, case
Re: (Score:2)
There were no allegations the Obama administration abused this process or did anything illegal with it. That's a fake talking point of the con artist and the Fox tabloid which you just repeated.
You also conveniently downplayed the con artist requesting unmasking orders of magnitude more times than Obama ever did. With his known penchant for crimes, if there should be any investigation of wrongdoing, it would be against him.
Re: (Score:2)
Harris is the one who said she wouldn't take it and Dems are spreading fear of it.
Negative, ghost rider. She said she wouldn't take it solely because Trump said to do it. She also said she'd be at the head of the line for a vaccine that was actually approved by real doctors.
Will videos of her making that statement be removed?
Hopefully, because if you see one... it's doctored.
What are Leftists to do?
Continue to try to educate ignorant people, I assume.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Previously before social media, people were solidly against censorship in any form, by government or moral busybodies who claimed to be "for your own good". Now these same people have the power to silence others with whom they disagree, it is a power they should not have. Power to the people!
"I think all censorship should be deplored. My position is that bits are not a bug."
-- Aaron Swartz (1986 - 2013) founder of Reddit.com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship. When there's no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn't make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or William Barr. America most definitely has such a system.
Freedom of speech is a far larger concept than something just limited to the government. It includes issues like privatization of the channels of speech that limit the messages that can be said and non-
Re: (Score:2)
In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship.
Stopped reading right there, because any subsequent text from you building on that sentence alone is likewise unbelievable bullshit
{CITATION(S) NEEDED}
Show me FEDERAL LAW supporting your bullshit claim or STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
You are spot on, corporate power in DC is a huge issue. I can assume then you support HR. 3537 "We the People Act" which is a nice starting point to deal with a good part of these issues and proposes an amendment to disqualify the actions the Citizen United decision allows?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they do, it's their web site. If you create your own web site you don't need to allow posts promoting child prostitution or genocide, do you? But if you remove them it's censorship, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Not clear what you mean by "deeply government-entrenched corporation".
Re: (Score:2)
Previously before social media, idiots could only influence those in their close social circles, now these same people have a platform to spread miss-information, it is a power they should not have.
It takes an idiot, to believe one.
Root-cause analysis speaks volumes here if we ever want to start evolving again instead of devolving. Instead of trying to herd Stupidity with our cats, lets stop attacking intelligence and try teaching humans to not be idiots instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes an idiot, to believe one.
Indeed. But the sad reality is that the masses are generally full of idiots. It's up to the smart people to protect idiots from themselves.
But YT aren't virologists... (Score:5, Interesting)
So... do they actually let a virologist check their rules?
Or is it just about whose subjective reality happens to have the biggest stick in the village?
Looking forward to seeing them ban the first virologist and researcher because they fell for some pseudo-science that is currently popular with the politicial group they are partisan with. Juuust like the nutters. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. A bunch of reviewers paid minimum wage knows what is real vaccine information and what is not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, because telling a bunch of two-digit IQ people on Twitter that the fucking coronavirus vaccine will kill them dead, or put a tracking chip in their bodies (this last one being X-Files level conspiracy shit) needs to be fact-checked before deleting it. Please, GET REAL, mmkay? "You can't fix stupid"; some people are just so plain stupid that they'd believe shit like that. Twitter is protecting the idiots from themselves.
To slightly misquote George Carlin, those "two digit IQ people" are half the population.
There does seem to be a general comprehension problem, that people do not believe this shit is happening, and try to carry on as if nothing were going wrong. This is not so much to do with intelligence, and more to do with moral fortitude. I do not know where that went. It disappeared a short time after the end of World War 2, I think. People are believing in loony shit because they can't face reality. It's not that bad,
Re: (Score:2)
There is no objective truth, only differing points of view, all equally valid.
Lots of things are objectively true, lots of things are objectively false and I'd argue very few opposing views are anywhere near equally valid. This is the kind of bullshit pseudo-logic that leads to conspiracies about chem-trails, flat-earths, young earth creationism and holocaust denial.
Re: (Score:3)
So... do they actually let a virologist check their rules?
Or is it just about whose subjective reality happens to have the biggest stick in the village?
Looking forward to seeing them ban the first virologist and researcher because they fell for some pseudo-science that is currently popular with the politicial group they are partisan with. Juuust like the nutters. :)
I know this is slashdot, but it still amazes me how you'd chose to type that post rather than...
The video platform said it would now ban any content with claims about COVID-19 vaccines that contradict consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization.
Re: (Score:2)
So... do they actually let a virologist check their rules? Or is it just about whose subjective reality happens to have the biggest stick in the village?
You don't need to be a scientists to separate actual science from worthless bullshit.
because they fell for some pseudo-science that is currently popular with the politicial group they are partisan with.
Political partisan bullshit doesn't generally make it into peer reviewed journals. I know you don't have a clue what that means but that doesn't mean others have a problem separating bullshit from science.
Danger!! Does anyone see the danger here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me, since we never see what "vaccine misinformation" is how do we know it is? Why are we censoring ourselves and act like it's a good thing.
I'm totally good with vaccines, but tell me, since there is no tested and completed vaccine, how can you determine misinformation? You know if you want to silence someone, just label it as vaccine misinformation.
Where does it stop?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh NO NO NO! The coronavirus vaccine will put government tracking chips in your body! Also it'll KILL you!!!11!!!
Do you really need shit like that fact-checked!?
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it stop?
The red line is when the government gets involved.
YouTube is a private entity. They can do what they want. If you want to get your message out, there are other venues.
The danger is that people will accept the silencing of opponents, rather than debate, as a valid response to criticism, and then demand the silence be enforced with coercion (i.e.: government).
We are getting close to that line. We have already had congressional hearings where private citizens have been compelled to explain their tolerance f
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting, since vaccines are among the most highly tested medical interventions out there.. Where do you get that they're not tested?
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Not vaccines in general. the "coronavirus" vaccine.
totally not ready to go and not tested.
Ahem. . . ANY medication can kill. . . . (Score:3)
. . . under the right (or actually, wrong. . . ) circumstances. The chance of it, with normal dosing, however, is vanishingly small. The same applies to vaccines. Yes, it could happen, but the odds are tens, or even HUNDREDS of orders of magnitude smaller than the anti-Vaxers claim.
Re:Ahem. . . ANY medication can kill. . . . (Score:4, Informative)
. . . under the right (or actually, wrong. . . ) circumstances. The chance of it, with normal dosing, however, is vanishingly small. The same applies to vaccines. Yes, it could happen, but the odds are tens, or even HUNDREDS of orders of magnitude smaller than the anti-Vaxers claim.
Uh, those odds you speak of get a lot more deadly on an accellerated timeline.
Let me remind you now that it took several decades to get a polio vaccine right. In the meantime, here's a little highlight from the "vanishingly small" historical timeline of the first year of polio vaccines:
"Unfortunately, initial trials were poorly executed and caused great harm to those involved. Teams of researchers in New York and Philadelphia both administered vaccines containing active poliovirus to tens of thousands of living subjects, including children and chimpanzees. Many subjects became severely ill or paralyzed, experienced allergic reactions, and even died of polio."
No matter how you want to paint it, vaccines are hard, and that difficulty likely increases almost exponentially when you have a President trying to rush one, because "muh elekshuns"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how you want to paint it, vaccines are hard
Baking a cake from scratch is hard too and much easier if you skip the whole growing grain bit and just get some flour from the shop. It's even easier if you have recipes to work with or get your grandma to show you how to bake.
There's literally a world of difference in knowledge and capabilities between when and from what starting point we developed the polio vaccine and what we are currently doing with development of this vaccine. There are 4 drugs already heading to Phase 3 trials already. To be clear th
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how you want to paint it, vaccines are hard
Baking a cake from scratch is hard too and much easier if you skip the whole growing grain bit and just get some flour from the shop. It's even easier if you have recipes to work with or get your grandma to show you how to bake.
There's literally a world of difference in knowledge and capabilities between when and from what starting point we developed the polio vaccine and what we are currently doing with development of this vaccine. There are 4 drugs already heading to Phase 3 trials already. To be clear these are drugs that have already passed critical safety hurdles which didn't even exist for the polio vaccine.
That's before you consider the design differences of the polio vaccine vs all the main contenders for a COVID-19 vaccine (no one will catch polio from these).
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that this virus is technically SARS-COV, Mark Two.
And yet, even with that knowledge, every infectious disease expert predicted the same timeline: 18 months.
Four drugs in phase 3 you say? So NOW all we have to endure, is the fucking political nightmare that will infect the decision of which one. Great. That human cockfighting for Greeds sake should only take another 18 months...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that this virus is technically SARS-COV, Mark Two.
That's not what I'm talking about (and did we even make a vaccination for the first such virus?) I'm talking about the process through which you design vaccines, the understanding of them and their reaction with the body, has developed in amazing ways since polio. Comparing the polio to any modern vaccine makes as much sense as comparing a horse to a car. Like coming back to the deadly part: and your direct quote, that is completely irrelevant in the modern context because we simply don't create vaccines wi
Re: (Score:2)
Let me remind you now that it took several decades
Some of us have learned something, since several decades ago. Did you?
If you had a vaccine that you had proven 100% effective in a 1,000-person study, tell me; how many foreign countries or even your own native citizens would freely consume your vaccine?
Greed N. Corruption, hasn't exactly gotten better over thousands of years of abuse. Not sure why you assume mere knowledge is the only thing we're fighting against today. You can't even spit truth more than 10 feet without being shit on and called a liar these days.
What magic are they going to use for this? (Score:3)
YouTube rarely removes anything from what I've seen. Crypto currency scams with Elon Musk "speaking" are up there all of the time with 10's of thousands of views. You can report them all day, but they don't get removed.
I've reported everything from sexual content about minors to misinformation in every form. Rarely does anything get removed from YouTube. I have seen it removed from my feeds but the minute I log in with a different ID, they are all still available and getting more views.
The Alphabet corp. may say they're doing something but its only lip service. They make billions but won't spend it on actual human moderators. Without doing something different, nothing will change.
--
The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent. - Gore Vidal
YT/G00gle == Big Brother == Great Wall of China (Score:1)
There is no such thing as consensus science (Score:3, Insightful)
From a great lecture "https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/"
Here’s what Michael Crichton had to say about “scientific consensus” back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming” (emphasis mine):
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Re:There is no such thing as consensus science (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There is no such thing as consensus science (Score:4, Insightful)
First, the obvious ad hominem: Who appointed Michael Chriton the arbiter of what science is?
But as for the actual argument he makes, "scientific consensus" doesn't mean or imply that something is true or correct because of the consensus. It means that scientists have converged on a reliable theory. If someone wants to refute that theory, they're going to need extraordinary evidence to do it.
Here's the thing that is always ignored by people arguing against the idea of consensus: Scientists generally love extraordinary evidence. Come out with a repeatable experiment that disproves a well-established theory and people will jump at the chance to put their name to the new theories that will follow.
So yes, scientific consensus is a real and valuable thing. And science advancing by questioning consensus is also a real and valuable thing.
Re: (Score:2)
First, the obvious ad hominem: Who appointed Michael Chriton the arbiter of what science is?
But as for the actual argument he makes, "scientific consensus" doesn't mean or imply that something is true or correct because of the consensus. It means that scientists have converged on a reliable theory. If someone wants to refute that theory, they're going to need extraordinary evidence to do it.
Here's the thing that is always ignored by people arguing against the idea of consensus: Scientists generally love extraordinary evidence. Come out with a repeatable experiment that disproves a well-established theory and people will jump at the chance to put their name to the new theories that will follow.
So yes, scientific consensus is a real and valuable thing. And science advancing by questioning consensus is also a real and valuable thing.
You should read that lecture. It's really good.
Re: (Score:2)
I read it. It's not good. At best it's an example of how hard it is for people to find flaws in arguments. Perhaps it's good sophistry, but nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific consensus has a particular meaning.
It's when a theory has been analysed, and nobody can disprove it (and the theory must be disprovable, otherwise it lies in the domain of philosophy, not science).
When a lot of people have tried, and failed to disprove it, then the scientific consensus becomes "This, to the best of the knowledge we currently have seems to fit the evidence as well as we're able to establish, and better than alternate theories, so it becomes our current candidate to base other work
Dammit YouTube! (Score:4, Funny)
Just because I'm paranoid it doesn't mean they are NOT out to get me!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Just because I'm paranoid it doesn't mean they are NOT out to get me!!!
FNORD!
Mutual contradiction (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure these contradict each other.
WHO's on first? (Score:5, Informative)
So... given that WHO can't make up its collective mind and keeps changing the "truth", will YouTube et al be banning what WHO said in January as lies while promoting what they said in March? Will they Ban what WHO said in March and promote what they said in January and in June? Will they ban everything WHO said before October and stand on THAT as the "truthiest" of truths? And if the October pronouncements are the "settled science", what then when WHO makes some new contradictory statements in the next few months?
In the Trump era, a great many people in many fields have become deranged and mix their politics into every damned thing so that we can no longer presume that a pronouncement of a scientist or doctor is non-partisan, unbiased, and tainted by a political agenda. It's also not just the Trump thing - China, as self-identifying communist regime (which I contend is NOT one, but is rather actually a mono-racial totalitarian fascist one, given the actual details) has extended the tentacles of its regime into entities like the WHO which is now run by a Marxist terrorist rather than a medical man. China has, for decades, dangled the prospects of billions of consumers in from of western corporate leaders looking for big untapped markets, and in response many of these businesses have gradually made themselves into servants of China, enforcing Chinese information control preferences as long as they are allowed to make money (Mussolini would recognize this pattern well). In other words, even in an alternate universe where Trump was never born and nobody was deranged about him, many powerful institutions, like international do-gooder outfits, media companies, and tech giants are catering to the whims of the Chinese communist party and manipulating information. Just look at the hoops Mark Cuban jumped through within the last several days during an interview to avoid saying anything about Chinese ethnic policies - he has no hesitancy in attacking Trump, or talking about ethnic issues in the USA, but he makes money from the massive basketball audiences in China, so, well, you get the point...
Re: (Score:3)
The reason that "The Truth" changes in WHO is that science advances, and people learn more about the problem, and how it presents.
The initial advice was given based on what worked for Influenza. Not a bad stab, but it doesn't correctly predict how COVID spreads, or its nuance.
So the advice changes. And the more that's learned, the better people can identify what works, and how well.. And as that progresses, advice changes again.
This is actual progress. There's rarely any such thing as "Settled Science".
Re: (Score:2)
This, they will also have to ban any official press conferences featuring the Canadian Government. They talk about covid every day or two and nothign they say aligns with the WHO.
Okguess like everyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microchip conspiracy. (Score:2)
Laughable. All good conspiracy theorists know that microchips are implanted into newborn babies with their Hep-B and vitamin K injections.
Artificial sweeteners are safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientific Consensus is not mob rule. You don't vote or fight you present your findings, everybody read them, and they discuss them until everybody agrees. Suggesting otherwise is a particularly nasty talking point put out by right wing think tanks that don't want to spend money addressing climate change or paying for other people to quarantine and get healthcare & vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
...you present your findings, everybody read them, and they discuss them until everybody agrees...
That's not how science works.
Re: (Score:2)
if you dig into the research you'll find one Japanese study that can be reproduced started the whole bruhaha. It was politicians and businessmen who told us the WMDs were there, the scientists said there weren't, and what does Anna Nicole have to do with science?
It was a movie reference
I'm aware (Score:3)
It is dangerous to suggest Scientific Consensus is mob rule. It is the exact opposite of mob rule. This suggestion is a right wing talking point that is being used to discredit the very notion of science. It is being pushed by billionaire funded think tanks. We need to push back hard against it whenever we see it because they've got billions of dollars and all we have i
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think it's a right wing thing? I've had plenty of left leaning be VERY vocal that scientific consensus is wrong when it comes to their own particular areas of interest. Of interest is that many fields have become very heavy on people full of ideology, but precious little science, publishing swathes of articles that are so unscientific that they fit squarely in the 'junk' category.
That is well known in scientific circles, which is why there's a general thrust to tighten up both publishing ch
Re: (Score:2)
"It was a movie reference"
It still is!
Yeah, but it was too!
That's a Mitch Hedberg reference for those unfortunate enough not to realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now its politicians who are telling us that masks work and we must wear them.
Not the scientists.
See this Journalist's response [twitter.com]
Quotes:
Is it any wonder the only ones who trust the policies coming o
Are you fucking kidding me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What has been well established is that masks don't protect the wearer. They do, however, have a marked statistical impact on the environment around if used properly. And they must be used properly.
On their own, they do very little (as a large amount of transmission is by contaminated surfaces), though aerosolised moisture droplets do stay in the air, and land on surfaces too. The masks capture a good quantity of these, lowering the chance of contamination via that vector.
That science was researched towar
Re: Artificial sweeteners are safe (Score:2)
^very well prepared and sourced comment showing how a lot of the illogocal bullshit we face in modern society is pre-planned on purpose bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Iraq didn't have them.
The reason they didn't have them was because Saddam got rid of them
The reason he got rid of them wasn't because he was a good guy. He simply thought the easiest way out of sanctions was to get rid of them but keep the ability and knowledge to build them. Then inspectors would find nothing and sign off on getting rid of the sanctions. Once that happen restart his programs and start making his fun stuff again. I am also un
Re: (Score:2)
And almost the first thing that Obama/Biden did upon entering office was to shut down all criminal investigations into the prior Madministration and declare that any sort of war crime prosecution by any country would not be tolerated. I fully expect the Biden/Harris administration to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a spate of highly partisan moderators whose specific role seems to be targeting things that they don't like hearing and downvoting them? It's getting more than a little irritating.
Personally, I found your snippet to be well presented, and quite relevant to the discussion at hand.
Re: Artificial sweeteners are safe (Score:2)
Where the hell are the mods these days? Wtf?
Upvote parent please.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling is a art!
Re: (Score:2)
and they said the MMR vaccine was totally dangerous and gave your kids autism - the article in the Lancet stayed up for all to read for 11 years.
And they said that Thalidomide was the safest drug ever invented, no dosage was sufficient to cause harm to anyone.
They said the Rotavirus vaccine was safe, but that was withdrawn after a year due causing infant intussusception.
they said the Swine Flu vaccine was safe, but turned out to cause a serious neurological disorder (Guillain-Barré Syndrome) in 1
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Please, these rules are peasants.
Good. Then they'll apply to her when she goes back to being one.
Or she'll become President, and we'll watch the MSM defend her bullshit antics while attacking Republicans for doing the same thing.
Hypocrisy alone, invalidates most of the stupid shit social media is doing to become "woke" these days, and it's pathetic. If you're going to lead, then fucking lead by example instead of leading by mental corruption.
Re:Ban Harris (Score:5, Informative)
for repeatedly claiming the covid vaccines will be unsafe?
Ban baby ban!
This is the quote from the VP debate that particular strawman was made: “If the public health officials, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us to take it then I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But, if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.” - Kamala Harris
Re: Ban Harris (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a quote from her alright. Care to guess how the people who think Trump's been a Russian spy since the 80s will interpret that quote?
No, you're on your own. I don't see how making straw men is helping the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone was born into psychological warfare, got infected by propaganda and is now suffering from truthphobia
Yes, and who do we have to thank for that?
Greed turned CSPAN into a Hype and Bullshit ratings machine, where Congressional leaders now feel it necessary to get in front of a camera every few hours and sling more shit against their political opponents, as if political warfare feeding television ratings is somehow their main job as a Representative.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really beginning to think that anyone who voluntarily uses 'social media', especially Facebook and Twitter, needs to have their cognitive competency tested. Maybe check their water for lead contamination.
Re: Thought Control accelerates daily... (Score:2)
Internet is really good for connecting stupid people, who previously would have to put a newsletter or phone number on the clubs notice boards at the local library.
I donâ(TM)t suppose Google for a lot of things, but this antivax shit has to stop.
Hear about the time someone at an antivax rally had a heart attack. Bystanders yelled âoeanyone here a doctor?â ... (sound of crickets and tumbleweeds...)