Hacker News Reader

Comment by uwuhn | Hacker News Reader

This is a very sensitive subject, so I'm hesitant to comment, but...

It sounds like you ultimately support censoring knowledge of the origins of a virus.

E.g., no one without some sort of exemplary privilege should be allowed to know where Ebola originated from, because if they have that knowledge, they will behave in a discriminatory and fearful matter. The general public just can't be trusted with that information because they will react to it inappropriately.

Changing the name adds an extra degree of separation between hearing/reading the name and knowing the origin (you have to perform an additional step to learn the origin, like reading the Wikipedia article), but your intent remains the same.

I am not saying that this mindset is good or bad, right or wrong. I just want to clarify that I am understanding you correctly.

View on HN

Literally everything counts as censorship nowadays, huh? This isn't hiding the origin or making it privileged information. This is to help curb irrational fears against a certain area. What's funny is that this change in naming convention started within the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_orthohantavirus

Discovered in 1993 near the Canyon del Muerte on the Navajo Reservation, it was originally named the Muerto Canyon hantavirus, in keeping with the convention for naming new pathogens.[2] However, the Navajo Nation objected to the name in 1994.[3] It was also near the Four Corners point in the United States, so the virologists then tried naming it the "Four Corners virus". The name was changed after local residents raised objections.[4] In frustration, the virologists changed it to Sin Nombre, meaning "without a name" in Spanish.

The point is that information is deliberately abstracted behind an additional layer for the sake of making it more difficult for the average person to obtain, and the ultimate intent behind that added friction.

You aren't responding to my question regarding intent at all.

>This is to help curb irrational fears against a certain area.

...by adding an extra degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the origin. Right? Do you disagree?

Censor and censorship bring with them different connotations, connotations that you purposely want to include; do you agree on that?

It's not adding a degree of separation between name and knowledge, no. It's removing unnecessary and also potentially-damaging information from the name of a pathogen. Why are you not advocating for a name like SARS-CoV-2, which contains more information and is more accurate?

>It's not adding a degree of separation between name and knowledge, no. It's removing unnecessary and also potentially-damaging information from the name of a pathogen

How is this not just adding a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the "unnecessary and also potentially-damaging" information?

That's...exactly what it is. You have to perform one more step to reach the information. It's not "removed" because you can still access it. That's what an additional degree of separation means.

>Why are you not advocating for a name like SARS-CoV-2, which contains more information and is more accurate?

I don't care about the name at all, and you are making huge assumptions here. I would even argue that having SARS in the name is problematic due to its prior association with a specific region in the general public's mind. I'm surprised you didn't consider that before me.

It's adding a degree of separation in the same way that saying water instead of dihydrogen monoxide adds a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of chemistry.

So you're saying that information is being removed but SARS has connotations with a specific region in the general public's name? Ok.

>It's adding a degree of separation in the same way that saying water instead of dihydrogen monoxide adds a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of chemistry.

The degree of separation in our discussion has to do with adding an additional step to knowing the origin of a virus. What would the intent behind your example be?

You're the only one saying "removed" here. Removal and abstraction/adding an extra degree of separation are not the same thing. Removal means you can't access the information at all, no matter how many additional steps you take. If removal is what you have had in mind all along, that goes back to where I was going with my original question, and your response here provides me with a definite answer. Thank you :)

Do viruses that were first discovered in India have meaningful differences from viruses first discovered in Portugal? Is this actually under debate? The point is to avoid undue harm from an arbitrary, random event from actual people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com