This misinformation is literally killing people. A private company fighting that is absolutely something to celebrate; GoFundMe gets my full support here.
I am all for companies taking public health into account, however I also think this in some part makes more people look into anti-vaxxination...because so much of it depends on a belief of conspiracy against the public. It's a hard animal to tackle.
The logical fallacy of “censorship is okay when I know it’s wrong” sets such a dangerous precedent, yet it’s downright celebrated by America’s left.
It’s quite frightening.
The recent increase of people who believe the Earth is flat seems to be direct evidence against your claim. Scientific and information literacy is not a widespread skill.
If more people believe the Earth is flat today versus 20 years ago, the truth is not prevailing: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/28/americas...
How so, exactly? I don't see any reason to think that the truth tends to prevail, except in processes where people are genuinely interested in discovering the truth. In fact, if you're not interested in discovering the truth, I would say that the truth is mostly powerless.
An example of how the truth is stifled in China because you can't discuss an historical event.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-03/how-china-has-censore...
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
Anyway, GoFundMe isn't in the business of informing anyone about anything.
This is how the future of censorship will work. And there won't be a legal protection against censorship because of this.
But I agree, GoFundMe can legally block anything they want.
They can block anything they want because that's what free speech means.
I'd like to see a reference for this -- there's plenty of evidence in favor of vaccinations out there from legitimate government and commercial sources, yet many anti-vaxxers dismiss those sources as "biased" or "in the pockets of big pharma", so it's not clear how presenting more of the information they already have access to will change anything.
But I can see how presenting less anti-vax "data" would be beneficial to public health.
How is it better to have _less_ "data" to base potentially life threatening choices on?
No medical procedure is 100% safe - even if they injected you with sterile saline, that's not 100% safe.
The risk of adverse effects from the measles vaccine is around one in a million doses. In comparison, you've got around a 1 in 8000 chance of dying in a car accident this year.
There's a misconception that public health policy is about keeping you (or your child) healthy -- it's not, it's about promoting health across the entire population. Even if there's a tiny risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine to your child, it's outweighed by the global reduction in serious illness. It's a part of living in society -- you should not get to make medical decisions that are proven to cause serious problems for others just to eliminate a minuscule risk to yourself.
I wonder why this position does not inform people's view on other things in life, like driving or gun ownership or tourism or taxation or consumerism or..
In truth, i like this approach far more (and have personally find it more effective in neutralising antivax points of view) than the rabid shouting of the vocal minority of provaxxers. It shows you acknowledge them and their concerns as people who (right or wrong) actually deeply care, but position their actions in direct relation to the consequences.