YouTube, Facebook and Twitter Align To Fight Covid Vaccine Conspiracies (bbc.com) 116
YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have said they will join forces with fact-checkers, governments and researchers to try to come up with a new way of tackling misinformation. From a report: Vaccine misinformation has been rife on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, with many questioning their efficacy. At the same time, countries are preparing to roll out coronavirus vaccines in a bid to end the pandemic. It is unclear how the initiative will improve the fight against fake news. Fact-checking charity Full Fact will co-ordinate the collaboration. Taking part in the effort alongside Facebook, Google-owned YouTube and Twitter are the UK's Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism; Africa Check; Canada's Privacy Council Office; and five other international fact-checking organisations. With funding from Facebook, an initial framework will launch in January, setting out new standards for tackling misinformation, as well as a set of aims on the best way to respond to such information.
[Undo] (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This will be a lot harder for them to undo than it was for them to popularise these anti vaccine conspiracies. Here's hoping they burn up all the profit they banked making the anti-vax movement a thing.
Sadly, that's a matter of putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
If you're a conspiracy theorist, Facebook attempting to push pro-vaxx information in your direction is just proof that Facebook is getting money from Big Pharma. Everyone else on their list are the very sorts of people in whom a conspiracy theory is going to breed distrust.
Sadly, there's no easy way to fix this.
Re: (Score:1)
Sadly, there's no easy way to fix this.
Fixing this is super easy. Stop "fact checking" and trying to be some arbiter of truth.
From the Department of Redundancy Department (Score:3, Funny)
Top conspiracy spreading social media companies form a conspiracy to defeat conspiracies.
Exercising caution isn't a conspiracy theory (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Fear not. Unless you're a first responder, medical staff, elderly, or one of the favored few elites, you're going to have to wait long enough to see how the first, second, and third waves work out.
And I betcha I am after the third wave - I'm not old enough to get early release, don't work in any profession that receives protection, and will not badger my healthcare professionals for a shot.
Re:Exercising caution isn't a conspiracy theory (Score:5, Insightful)
And sharing that sentiment of reasonable caution is not what FB, Twitter, etc, are combatting. They're combatting the "this vaccine is a government attempt to...
"
Re:Exercising caution isn't a conspiracy theory (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno.
I'm of the feeling that they will likely err on the side of extreme caution or whatever you want to call it....in that ANY statements remotely negative or cautious expressed about the covid vaccines will be marked or deleted as wrong think, conspiracy and fake.
We've not seen social media be sensible about most any of the things they've seen fit to censor.
Re: (Score:2)
And any actual negative results will be labeled a conspiracy theory, or blamed on Orange Man Bad.
Re: Exercising caution isn't a conspiracy theory (Score:2)
I'm of the feeling that they will likely err on the side of extreme caution or whatever you want to call it....in that ANY statements remotely negative or cautious expressed about the covid vaccines will be marked or deleted as wrong think, conspiracy and fake.
Stop gaslighting. You're not fooling anyone bud, we know when you say "remotely negative, cautiously expressed" you mean things like:
"Covid vaccine MIGHT be like covid times ten, I don't know, that's what they say."
Which is in the typical style of intentional misinformation we've all come to expect for four years.
And by "marked or deleted as wrong think, conspiracy and fake." you mean Twitter might, by the grace of God, put a link to vaccine safety on such messages.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're on FB, Twtitter, etc, that's already happened. Just look at the conspiracy theories.
Well, some kids, two or three have died from vaccines over the decades so yeah, this is just another attempt.
make money at your expense
Unlike FB, Twitter, etc who harvest your every move and comment.
The current one is the vaccine will inject you with a tracer the government can use to kn
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the one going around is Plandemic, saying the whole thing s a scheme by Bill Gates in order to push a vaccine. They would give you an "immunity passport" which instead of carrying it around like a normal passport, they'd put on an invisible tag when you got the vaccine. Thus they'd scan the tag and see you got your vaccine shot.
At the same time, they'd use the tag to track you and monitor you
Thus, anti-maskers and liberty and freedom.
Of course, perhaps Facebook, Twitter and YouTube would allow us
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Exercising caution isn't a conspiracy theory (Score:2)
Considering every single one of these researchers, and then other medical people with the ability but not specifically working on COVID-19, vaccinated themselves back in May and June, I feel fairly confident in the process. I mean the flu vaccine is literally different every single year. You cant take last yearâs vaccine and it be worth anything. So clearly its a new vaccine every year. They dont run trials on those because the overall design did not change only the specific components. The Oxford vacc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can also speed a process up by running steps in parallel.
And that is happening here. They have already starting manufacturing the vaccines prior to getting final approval. That doesn't happen normally, because it's expensive and risky - they will have to throw away the supplies if it fails any steps.
But these aren't normal times.
Re: (Score:3)
What evidence do you have that the "vaccines are clearly being rushed"? [...] Rushing implies skipping steps [...]
Well, most obviously, the pharma companies behind two of the leading vaccines are seeking emergency use authorization from the FDA [cnbc.com], which, by definition, means that they are asking to skip steps that they would normally be required to go through. So, yeah, it's being rushed.
Mind you, I think their requests are warranted. I'm NOT suggesting it's evidence of malfeasance or recklessness. These are extraordinary circumstances, so it makes complete sense that we'd want to get vaccines out just as soon as they ca
Re:Exercising caution isn't a conspiracy theory (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I get my flu vax every year and just got my shingles shot. That said it's common knowledge that vaccines take years to get into the pipeline and the potential Covid vaccines are clearly being rushed. If the authorities insist on rushing the Covid vax into distribution it seems reasonable to wait and see how the first wave of vaccinations go. I hope I'm proven to be overly cautious.
Well, TBH, most of us probably won't be able to get in on the first round of Covid vaccinations, anyway, since they'll almost certainly prioritize healthcare workers.
Even so, I'll probably get one ASAP, my logic being this, given the current front-runner candidate vaccines:
- It seems that the vaccines have been proven effective
- It doesn't seem like there have been severe reactions or problems caused by them
- I will almost certainly get Covid, given enough time
- There *might* be some long-term effects of getting vaccinated, but there seems to be a very good chance of long term effects from getting Covid
It comes down to which potential long-term effects would be worse - and I'm leaning towards the ones from actually getting sick.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not a sentiment of reasonable caution. What breaks it is the statement that "Covid vaccines are clearly being rushed" and that "authorities insist on rushing the Covid vax into distribution". No, the authorities are still requiring the multi-stage trials to ensure safety and efficacy. Natural urgency accelerates the process, and the way this works is through parallelism and ad
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that you're cautious, isn't disingenuous bullshit. These companies are trying to avoid publishing real bullshit, like saying the vaccine is secretly made to do a bad thing.
The vaccine wasn't made to do a bad thing. It was made to fight COVID. It may or may not do a good job or have side-effects (though recent reports are very promising). You know that, I know that, but Facebook's users either don't know that or are pretending they don't know. There are apparently people who think the vaccine was care
Re: (Score:2)
Never fear! These things will have large published studies behind them before they become available for your arm. Even the Russian Sputnik V vaccine (92% efficacy) has had around 40,000 people in its trial and they are working on further trials. Pfizers vaccine (95% efficacy) has 43,000 in its trial. With those numbers the p value is minescule. Its a pretty confident result
Re: (Score:2)
That said it's common knowledge that vaccines take years to get into the pipeline and the potential Covid vaccines are clearly being rushed.
That's only ignorance talking. Vaccines in many cases only take months when you have a base from which to work on. They aren't curing smallpox or some other great unknown, this is a very specific and as of about March a well researched virus.
There is no rush here, there is only jumping the queue. The vaccines are going through completely identical clinical trials and peer review as other medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I get my flu vax every year and just got my shingles shot. That said it's common knowledge that vaccines take years to get into the pipeline and the potential Covid vaccines are clearly being rushed. If the authorities insist on rushing the Covid vax into distribution it seems reasonable to wait and see how the first wave of vaccinations go. I hope I'm proven to be overly cautious.
The Pfizer phase 3 trial alone enlisted 43,600 people. How much more fucking testing do you want? Do you imagine that annual flu vaccines get much more?
The reason the production of the Covid vaccines went faster than usual is that everybody threw vast amounts of money at the problem. There was a lot of cooperation between companies and research departments of universities and governments and there was existing experience from previous research into SARS.
Meanwhile on Slashdot, on a story about a vaccine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Harris on a vaccine: "If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it, absolutely, but if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I'm not taking it."
... stop playing politics with people's lives."
Pence: "The fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine - if the vaccine emerges during the Trump administration - I think is unconscionable
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, the "party of science" is showing their true colors. I'm sure big tech will make sure to censor her as well as Cuomo:
https://nypost.com/2020/11/17/... [nypost.com]
Re:Meanwhile on Slashdot, on a story about a vacci (Score:4, Insightful)
All she did was say that Trump is not a doctor. Fauci is. That's factually accurate, not anti-vax, and completely in line with good science principles.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
As hard as this may be for you to believe about anything, politics has nothing to do with it. Fauci is a doctor and a highly respected expert on epidemiology. Trump rather emphatically is not. End of story.
Curiously, what evidence do you have that Fauci is a Democrat? Not saying he's not, mind you, but I sure can't find any indications online of his political alignment. He's served administrations of both parties, having been an advisor to every US president since Reagan. His Presidential Medal of Fre
Re: (Score:2)
No, it tells that for Harris politics are more important than science, as Fauci is democrat and Trump is republican. Basically, her statement is to be understood as: If authoritarian politicians with a long and well documented history of lying to the public come up with a vaccine, I am not taking it.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has a record of pushing bogus and potentially harmful "cures."
If you comparing Kamala to The Donald, you already lost the argument that what she said is anywhere near acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
As for your new claim, that making a comparison would somehow undermine my argument: nonsense. I can compare anything to anything. Watch: how does Trump compare to Harris? He doesn't measure up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read that as neither accepting or rejecting what Trump claims, but rather rejecting him as a source of information and getting her advice from elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, while we're here: Fauci is not a democrat. Where the fuck did you get that bit of nonsense? No, don't tell me. I know.
I'm pretty sure Q told him personally.
Re: Meanwhile on Slashdot, on a story about a vacc (Score:2)
Fauci is an administrator. He stopped practicing medicine a long time ago.
Anthony Stephen Fauci is an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984
That is a long time pushing a pencil. Its like taking medical advice from Dr Oz. Now if Fauci is relaying information from a consensus of medical professionals, then I will listen to the information presented by that groups head administrator. In fact I think of i
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. I used a shorthand that, although not wrong, is inaccurate. Let me amend: "Fauci is medically trained and has a background qualifying him to evaluate input from practicing medical professionals. Trump does not."
Re: (Score:2)
Its like taking medical advice from Dr Oz.
This is both horribly insulting and wildly inaccurate. Physicians don't gain or maintain their medical knowledge by practicing medicine. At best, it can help them with diagnosis - they get better, with caveats, at recognizing problems with patients and interpreting patients' explanations when they've seen these things many times. This skill is useless for the director of NIAID.
Physicians learn in school, and keep up to date by reading new material and attending medical conferences. Most states require ph
Re: (Score:2)
Im sorry but If I am in a horrible accident I do NOT want Fauci on my damn trauma team. But if you trust his shaky unskilled hands inside your torso, be my guest.
This IS the same guy that first said wearing masks will cause the virus to spread quicker because people will be touching their face more often. Now we know that surface transmission is actually extremely low compared to respiratory inhalation. Not only do we now know that masks not only reduce your transmission of the virus but also offer protecti
Re: (Score:2)
Im sorry but If I am in a horrible accident I do NOT want Fauci on my damn trauma team. But if you trust his shaky unskilled hands inside your torso, be my guest.
I'm struggling to see where you're going with this. He's an immunologist, not a surgeon, so if he were on the team of people treating you after an accident he would be there as a consultant. And yet you seem to think that involves him putting his hands in your torso. And what does this have to do with his suitability as director of the NIAID? And what does that have to do with shaky hands? You seem to have ignored the point I was making entirely, he could be the worst surgeon in the world and that would con
Re: Meanwhile on Slashdot, on a story about a vac (Score:2)
The argument was âoehe is a doctor not a politician so trust ANYTHING he says medically relatedâ.
My response is that he is an office Administrator for the last 30 years and not a practicing doctor. I dont take medical advice from the opinions of Administrators. Whether that is Fauci, Dr Oz, or Dr Sanje Gupta. Their current job is not specifically medical in nature. Thats the same thing as taking strategy and planning advice from a General, but not taking his advice on hand-to-hand combat tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the same thing as taking strategy and planning advice from a General, but not taking his advice on hand-to-hand combat tactics.
Well, okay. Fauci has given you no advice whatsoever. He doesn't know you exist, and doesn't know anything about your specific circumstances. I don't think this is a bad analogy, but you seem to be implying that what Fauci does is not strategy or planning advice. It is certainly strategy and planning advice. If Fauci says, "We need to be social distancing." then he's not talking about you, specifically. If he looks into the camera and says, "We need to be social distancing. I'm talking about you, specifical
Re: Meanwhile on Slashdot, on a story about a vac (Score:2)
Fauci is not the authority of whether a vaccine is safe. His department is not responsible for that. So Kamallas dumb statement is flawed. The FDA is the authority on the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. So fauci telling you its safe is no more or less valid than anyone else attached to the administration. Its not like you can be given the vaccine without FDA approval.
Re: (Score:2)
His department is not responsible for that. So Kamallas dumb statement is flawed.
First, the NIAID does do vaccine research and is actively involved in COVID vaccine development. Second, even if Fauci's department had nothing at all to do with COVID research, or vaccine research, or anything at all related to vaccines, that still would not support your conclusion that there was something wrong with Harris' statement. She said that she would listen to Fauci, or "the doctors," and not listen to Trump. She said this because Trump is an established liar, and in particular he been using his p
Re: (Score:2)
It is impressive the maneuvers your brain went through to call this an anti-vaccine view. All she is saying is that she does not have confidence in Trump personally. This is a logical point a view. Trump has told people to go about their normal lives even without a vaccine, and I have not doubt that he would push a vaccine that isn't very effective, or has significant side effects, if he thought it would boost the stock market.
Re: (Score:1)
Fauci says vaccine OK, Trump says nothing or against it - first in line to take It
Fauci says nothing or against it, Trump says vaccine OK - I'm not taking it
Fauci says vaccine OK, Trump say vaccine OK - I'm not taking it
Fauci says nothing or against it, Trump says nothing or against it - Unspecified
Re: (Score:2)
Harris on a vaccine: "If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it
Maybe if you think this was an anti vaccine view you should learn a different language. English clearly is not for you.
Slowing is still the game. (Score:2)
Covid-19 isn't that complex.
People cough, the virus gets on stuff, they touch stuff... then a little bit of it remains just viable enough to get to another person and reproduce.
Same logic as a cold, just 10x as deadly, using conservative numbers - use virtually any statistics you want.
Masks work - not by preventing the loop completely, but by very effectively slowing it down. Just, you know, cover your mouth and nose completely.
The reason this is crucial is the same reason we've been doing it all along - t
I am both scared and delighted (Score:2)
The problem with social media, is how nearly any idea no matter how stupid or factually inaccurate it is, is given the same weight or even more weight than correct and factual data. Because false information is often more interesting, and sparks a lot of views, thus brings in more revenue.
Now that we have been seeing the danger of misinformation these social media companies should be sure to reign in their thirst for profit for the greater good, of allowing people to get factual information.
That being said
Re: (Score:2)
Now that we have been seeing the danger of misinformation these social media companies should be sure to reign in their thirst for profit for the greater good, of allowing people to get factual information.
Holy shit thanks for the laugh. Funniest damn thing I've read all day.
That being said, these companies will need to walk a fine line, of showing truthful information compared to just posting what they feel is truthful, but isn't fully backed up. Social Media created a lot of amateur reporters, in which they are able to seem just as creditable as other reporters are, and they may not be so good at doing the leg work and real fact checking.
Given the sheer volume these companies are dealing with, they're going to continue to do what they always do. Placate shareholders with empty promises while standing up "advanced" algorithms and other fully automated processes that will suck on day 1 and continue to suck every day after that, censoring and blocking anything and everything they deem as non-factual.
Unfortunately for all of Social Media, Trust left the stable long ago. Th
Re: (Score:2)
"companies should be sure to reign in their thirst for profit"
I can't be sure that this is merely a misspelling, or insightful nuance into the real issue - profit vs responsibility.
Knowing that these companies actually also find that their power gives them social control, and they like that, I wonder what would happen if profit were diminished by their actions. I'm not hopeful. We are so addicted to these dopamine exploiters we're stuck, for a while at least.
If only it were this simple (Score:2)
Vaccination is not s simple issue. It is not a monolith.
Vaccinations against Measles, for instance, are generally recognized as low enough risk to justify 100% compliance. MMR, etc., all these typically childhood vaccinations are all pretty much tolerated. The questions about mercury, other side effects, etc., all need research, and if we could trust our medical and scientific communities, these questions would be answered definitively in time.
Some, however, are getting a lot of pushback, most visibly HPV
Re: (Score:2)
Cervical cancer kills around 4,300 women in the U.S. each year. The HPV vaccine would greatly reduce the number of people who get these cancers and save lives. Are you willing to trade someone's life so you don't have to be bothered to get a couple of shots?
Re: If only it were this simple (Score:2)
Please don't ask me, I have no children to vaccinate.
Re: (Score:2)
HPV vaccines are getting pushback because they imply that girls have an interest in sex just like boys and that girls aren't virginal flowers until their wedding day. I haven't met any opposition to the HPV vaccine yet that wasn't rooted in "my little girl wouldn't do such things!" I'm sure that the HPV vaccine isn't as well tested as the measles vaccine because it hasn't been out that long, and if someone wants to make that argument, fine, but that isn't the argument that is trotted out most of the time. O
Re: If only it were this simple (Score:2)
Your experience isn't at all the same as mine. Virtually everyone I know who's rejected HPV for their children has, first, questions about safety, based on many, to them, reports of terrible side effects, and those undisclosed to them.
That's such a contentious issue there's no simple answer. The morality issues, of course, intrude on every government mandate, every one, since all legislation is someone's morality.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I lived in a place where such reasonable concerns were the primary ones expressed. "Even if it works, no good girl should ever need it," is the predominant sentiment here. "Only get it for your daughter if you think she's a slut."
I am thrilled that you tell me less twisted places exist in the USA.
Re: If only it were this simple (Score:2)
They do. Most of my friends and acquaintances also give their daughters birth control options, mostly because they don't trust boys. And their boys they give harsh advice, and birth control. They are not only realists, they were young once too.
That's stupid and it won't go well... (Score:2)
The "WE AUTHORITY, TRUST US" approach only make a bunch of people distrust you.
Instead i think there would be a focus on vaccine on vaccine competition on the news.
"The Oxford vaccine is better than the chinese vaccine" etc..
Pretty Funny (Score:2)
Sounds like they need to form a Ministry (Score:1)
Tough job (Score:1)
That main source of vaccine FUD right now is the establishment. People like Cuomo are raising fears because he's a TDS sufferer that can't stand the thought that Trump might get credit. With mass vaccine deployment we can anticipate and endless stream of medical anecdotes about health problems caused by whatever vaccines are used. They'll be popping up on individual social media accounts planet wide. What is facebooktwittergoogle going to do? Ban all the hypochondriac pink hairs when they blame every a
Misinformation about fighting misinformation (Score:2)
At this point, anything these companies have to say about their 'efforts' to fight misinformation should itself count as misinformation.
We shouldn't applaud censorship (Score:2)
Censorship is more damaging than conspiracy theories. Be careful what you wish for. Today they silence people you disagree with, but one day they will silence you or people you agree with.
The emperor has no clothes (Score:2)
Publisher vs Neutral Platform (Score:1)
Conspiring to fight conspiracy theories? (Score:2)
So there is now effectively a group conspiring to push their view of reality on everyone. Nobody involved has the self awareness to consider this might backfire horribly?
It's just a conspiracy until it happens (Score:1)
In other words, the herd makes us follow the herd (Score:2)
Back off, tech bros !
Friedrich Schiller said: (Score:2)
Against stupidity, the gods themselves battle in vain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There, I appended something to your free speech.
And I applaud that you exercised your free speech, in this public discussion forum, as a fellow human being who took the time and thought to engage with me in discussion. I, in turn, now get to exercise my right to free speech in response. That is what two sentient beings may do. However, your argument is misguided, as I was talking about the mass filtering and editorializing of ALL posts made by ALL people by some machine to append the viewpoint of a single entity that wields all this power and control.
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible, through discourse, for you and I to change one another's opinions.
No, it's not, because you're not interested in discourse. You're trying to stop others from challenging your rubbish. You want to wield the power of someone else's platform and deny them the right to use their own platform to counteract your disinformation campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
> by some machine
:-) The ability to sculpt the public narrative has always rested with big publishers who have loud voices. FaceBook, Twitter, etc., are just the latest inheritors of the power of broadcast media. The USA has survived that before, and, arguably, has been healthier because messages did go through filtration before getting onto the national stage. That's a point of
You mean like Pulitzer or Hearst? Or the Chicago political machine? Or how about The Three Networks in post-WWII USA?
Re: And so it begins... (Score:2)
I think the one difference was that with 3 competing identical broadcast companies, the risk of someone else breaking the story curbed the risk of censorship. We dont have 3 identical social media platforms. Therefore they are more likely to form a cartel than they are to compete with each other. If there were 3 exact versions of Facebook or 3 exact versions of Youtube, I would be way more inclined to agree with you. Right now we have very different platforms that do not have to compete for our time. People
Re: (Score:2)
That's for the market to work out. FOX News came into being to fill a perceived void. Then came MSNBC on the other side. Right now, people are creating alternate social media platforms out of perceived right-wing bias. That's their right, and I support their right (even if I will fight like hell to prevent their policies from becoming law).
Re: (Score:2)
look on the bright side... when your side controls all the knobs of who gets a voice and who doesnt, how do you learn when someone in your group has committed fraud or an atrocity? At least with competition, the fact that you cannot silence the story getting out should keep certain behaviors in check. At least that is how things used to work.
Now there has been so much deliberate misinformation at all levels; from crackpot conspiracy theorists to top level network executives; that all someone has to do is cl
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine they would've been even more alarmed at the actual violation of free speech rights (not the pseudolegal understanding of it you display here) that would be involved in preventing a private entity from doing this. It would amount to forced speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Our forefathers would have been astonished, and probably moved to insurrection, if pamphlets nailed to church doors or lampposts, or merely handed around, were stamped with disclaimers or appendices, claiming authority to discredit or disprove the content 'published' (those were old ways of publishing)...
We need to reconsider protecting these outlets from responsibility for censoring and invalidating the content they claim only to be 'delivering'. I no longer care to let them have it both ways. Let them cen
Re: (Score:2)
Such disclaimers were added by printers. "I printed this but I don't agree with it" tags can be found on old documents. And it is impossible to find printed documents of things that no one agreed to publish (thus some political groups resorting to letter writing campaigns by hand!) If you didn't own a printing press, you had to hunt around for someone willing to print for you, and you would be refused if you tried to get certain ideas published. Our forefathers and foremothers would not have been astonished
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, the owners of the doors or lampposts would remove the pamphlets as soon as they saw them, if they disagreed with the contents.
Stuff posted in public was, is, and will ever be consistently defaced by those who disagree.
First Amendment Free Speech means that someone can criticize the powerful, especially government servants, without fear of arrest by the government. It says nothing about requiring the rest of the people in the public square to listen intently, respectfully, quietly, believing the bullsh
Re: And so it begins... (Score:2)
I know history. I know who owns most lampposts. And I know beating someone for posting opinions you disagree with is wrong. Violence in response to contrary speech is a difficult path, but one fascists (and those who merely act that way) in particular seem to favor. Maybe consider chastisement instead of violence?
Re: (Score:2)
Not on my property, slick.
Re: (Score:2)
But you already know they can/will do that. Newspapers have been able to edit and respond to letters people write to them and that they publish in the newspaper for centuries. Somehow civilization hasn't fallen off a cliff.
Just because our speech is piped through technology instead of spoken out loud, or written or printed on a piece of paper, doesn't mean someone else should have the ability to clarify, append
What planet are you on? Even if you say shit out loud, the person next to you can clarify, append,
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty easy to imagine, and it was likely their routine experience. I get on the soapbox in the commons, and say something to the rabble. But then after I step down, someone else can stand on it and speak? Oh, the horror!!!
I think you're
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the forefathers of this country, when they passed the First Amendment, discovering that technology of the future would allow some 3rd party to append to your speech anything they wanted, if you speech was concerning a topic they deemed worthy of fact checking.
It has always been possible for people to append extra text to any speech. During the founding of the US it would have been accomplished by the people with printing presses. Prior to the printing press it would have been accomplished by people hand copying texts. For spoken word all you would need is someone to set up a soapbox next to yours and append anything they wished to what you were saying.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that says that you are allowed to say whatever you wish and everyone els
Re: (Score:2)
This was TRUE when Founding Fathers created the First Amendment! Printing presses were owned by very few people, and those who owned the presses owned the speech they chose to print. They could, and did, refuse to print things or printed them with addendums like the ones you suggest.
The only scary part about this path is if the government gets involved in specifying what speech needs to be tagged/amended. As long as it is publishers, that's intended and expected behavior. If you don't like the tags/amendmen
Re: (Score:2)
How is adding a little sentence to something said any different than friends at the bar when somebody says something stupid getting corrected?
I'd be much more scared of outright removal of statements. Adding a fact-check tick is something that at most makes somebody look for other opinions, at least shrug and go "so what?"
Re: (Score:2)
I have a question. Is there any hard proof that GMOs are actually bad for us to consume or have in our vaccines?
I would be willing to accept that they may not be good environmentally (e.g. allow for increased use of pesticides and genes may cross to similar species) but I haven't seen any real evidence that GMOs are harmful to consume.
Re: GMOs; likely not dangerous, but... (Score:2)
The most important (and I think serious) problem with GMO technology is its contribution to further market consolidation and consequent further erosion of normal consumer market power.
The question of "danger" is the low but nonzero probability of unintended consequences, such as ecological surprises, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a perfect example of the simplistic, binary, weak reasoning (if you can call it that) of your typical anti-vaxer.
Re: (Score:2)
"...in your food? Bad"
Not really. The whole anti-GMO thing has been mostly woo-woo.
Re: (Score:2)
Checkmate ""scientists""