And not moderating them is a slippery slope to facilitating violent extremism, and to anti-science activists leading an otherwise-developed country to top the chart in pandemic deaths.
There's no perfect solution, only compromises which have to be made.
Now, a lot of less honest publications like to compare the total number of deaths in order to cynically take advantage of the fact that there are few countries as big as the USA, but of course that's a nonsense comparison. If the USA was instead split up into 50 countries, it'd be much further down that ranking even if the exact same number of people died.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...
If states were countries, half of the top 20 per capita would consist of US States, with the other half essentially being developing nations.
In fact, I'd say that the only reason the US per capita rate is as low as it is is that states like California (itself accounting for over a tenth of the population) actually took things seriously and brought down that average.
Split hairs all you want, but the fact that the US at one point accounted for a quarter of all cases despite being 4% of the world's population is a stain on the whole country, and a significant argument that the US is directly to blame for the pandemic lasting as long as it did.
It has little to do with that. If that were the case, Florida would not have been within spitting distance of California. Why is New York at the top of list? They had a similar response as California.
The issue is far more complex than "taking things seriously". Population density, climate, age of population, and job types probably contribute more than simply "taking things seriously".
The Federal Government cannot restrict citizens from traveling between the states. I don't know anyone, here in the US anyway, who would even suggest such an action.
The privileges and immunities clause, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, protects the interstate travel rights of US citizens.
In fact travel rights were actually restricted in practice by the Federal Government and it's agencies, and states under both Republican and Democrat leadership. There are many well established exceptions that restrict access to constitutional rights under various circumstances, so the contention that this can't be done falls a bit flat. If nobody can do it, how come everybody did it?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
I'll let it speak for itself.
Well, the USA does top the chart in pandemic deaths. You instead just talk about deaths per capita, and call that misinformation. Ok, but that's not what the GP was talking about. A total straw man.
Then when you get around to mentioning total pandemic deaths, look at all the emotive words you pack into the sentence:
> less honest publications like to compare the total number of deaths in order to cynically take advantage of the fact that there are few countries as big as the USA, but of course that's a nonsense comparison.
I don't know where you got this list from. JHU's database[1] shows Peru and Brazil at the top for the per-capita statistic (not CFR). Brazil, conspicuously, has a COVID-denialist leader, refused a general lockdown, and is currently #3 in the world for deaths.
(Also, Brazil is probably pretty representative of South America as a whole, they just seem to have better testing than other countries there and likely report more of their Covid deaths than others. I know a while ago, there was some analysis suggesting Mexico had more Covid deaths than Brazil with a substantially lower population and was just massively under-reporting them due to missing testing.)
Underneath that chart they break down data for many more than those 20 countries.
The US is currently 74th of 203 countries when counting new covid cases per capita in the last week. So my perception is people have mostly switched to shaming the US for "vaccine nationalism" and the like, and downplaying accusations of poor handling of the epidemic.
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#wee...)
[0] https://www.contagionlive.com/view/ivermectin-to-be-analyzed...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/11/indian-...
Also worth noting hiding behind "just discussing" something is a slippery slope in its own right. There's a long history of people claiming to be "just asking questions" when they're transparently using "discussion" as a means to spread fringe ideology.
Limiting fat and protein in favor of carbs in one’s diet is a good example. This bad advice lead to an obesity epidemic that has killed millions of people.
As it stands, I am very skeptical that you could find any such evidence.
The way to change consensus is evidence-based advocacy by experts, not idle speculation by the domain-uneducated.
Without the discussion many of the topis scientist study and figure out the truth would never have happened.
We need the conversations and even controversy help decide where we spend the resource of what scientist study.
edit: gatekeeping
The funding to eventually overturn this bad science was suppressed at mainstream institutions and had to be obtained from the very outsiders you condemn. Phrenology and scientific racism were embraved by the experts for decades. Lucky for us, people didn't follow your advice then.
Notwithstanding the merits or lack thereof of your point, the videos about chloroquine and ivermectin that were banned WERE discussions by medical professionals. Have you seen them?
Its completely true based on my FB or twitter feed where you can find thousands of people who couldn't pass a GED test arguing a bout science that they don't understand.
Yikes. I can only imagine how little progress we would have made as a civilization with an a approach like that.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes...
The statement continues: “Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies. In our view, this paper does not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”
Seems a bit crude to pick on Czechia, Belgium, Italy, Britain, Spain and France like that. Surely they're not so anti-science as you're suggesting.
Covid deaths per 1,000 population:
Czechia: 2.85 | Belgium: 2.2 | Italy: 2.11 | Britain: 1.93 | US: 1.84 | Spain: 1.73 | France: 1.65 | Sweden: 1.43
And if we were analyzing trends, Germany rather dramatically joined the Covid party toward the end (with an extreme death rate across a rough five month span). Was that due to a mass spontaneous national anti-science movement on their part? I don't think so.
As for false information, quackery, etc... there would be icons that people could up/downvote to provide public opinion as to something being false information. Post a video of the earth being flat? No problem, go right ahead. People can upvote the "Cool story bro" icon. Quackery icons will slowly de-rank a video from showing up in suggested. There would also be industry specific icons and people verified to be from those industries could double-up-vote icons as well as post comments with a checkmark next to their name linking to their public credentials and contact information. Cost? The verification process would pay for itself. Being a verified subject matter expert provides exposure for the individual, so there is incentive to pay to be manually verified. Being a SME does not grant the ability to remove a video, only the ability to add a comment with a checkmark. Not all SME's will agree with one another. Let the merits of their conversations drive public opinion and emoji voting. Post a cure for covid or cancer? Go for it. Verified doctors and scientists can post checkmark comments and upvote the quackery emojis if they feel it is required. Or they could upvote the green checkmark if they agree. More verified checkmarks equates to higher rank in suggested content.
Have we really learned nothing over the last year and a half? What will it take to shake your faith in the media?
Four weeks ago, the idea that COVID-19 originated from a lab was a conspiracy theory, likely to get you banned with extreme prejudice for being a qanon white supremecist.
COVID-19 was a conspiracy theory. Then it was a conspiracy theory that human to human transmission was possible. Then it was a conspiracy theory that wearing masks was at all helpful.
What will be the next domino to fall? What will the new truth be a few weeks from now?
If anything, censoring "conspiracy theories" led directly to the COVID-19 pandemic.
If this was 2015, I think things would have gone much better for us. Citizens would have been able to fill in the gaps where journalists failed us. There might have been a panic for people to buy masks and close the borders, sure, but the pandemic would have probably been contained.
I was banned for spreading conspiracy theories in February 2020 when I pleaded with people to practice basic hygiene and postpone travel until we had figured out what was going on.
More info here: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7jqbx/reddit-cant-quarantin...
Also here: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/f6jpm7/what_i...
And a quote from /r/OutOfTheLoop about /r/WuhanFlu:
> The users of that subreddit believe in a conspiracy that the Wuhan Coronavirus is more serious than the governments of China and the United States are telling them. They believe the government is mismanaging the outbreak. They were quarantined because an admin believed the subreddit was spreading misinformation.
Note that /r/WuhanFlu was already talking about this mismanagement since mid-January.
Unfortunately @apostacy (who is getting downvoted) is from what I experienced back then mostly right.
Meanwhile the other corona-subreddits were and/or still are controlled by moderators that also control many of the other largest Reddit-approved (corona-)subreddits:
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1582202873483.jpg (Sorry, this 4chan archive of the image is all I could still find)
And this is all just one example of how crazy things can get and not even the worst (like people getting doxxed and personally harassed, getting banned on multiple sites en masse etc.). Many people who aren't in the right place at the right time within certain communities probably can't even imagine things like this could happen (like I couldn't 6 years ago) until it happens to them. They just call you a "conspiracy theorist". Not everyone who is skeptical of the mainstream story believes in "flat earth", is "anti-vaxx", thinks they want to "inject us with microchips" and "control us with 5G". Those are used as an example to censor and/or discredit other alternative views.
All we did on that subreddit was just trying to find out what was happening before everyone was talking about it (which was suspicious in itself).
It doesn't matter. You should not be censoring peoples opinions or them asking questions. The lab leak hypothesis should have never been censored. Maybe if someone was claiming they knew it was true without providing sufficient evidence I could see a case for it. Calling something misinformation when they aren't presenting it as fact but a possibility is disgraceful especially when it comes to journalism.
There is a perfect solution, which is for the government & the corporatist state to defend our rights, which include the Freedom of Speech. Somebody is lying & the public has a right to all of the pertinent information & unrestricted conversation. The worst case is for the liars to have total control of the information. Those are the definitions of totalitarianism & authoritarianism.
---
Edit: I actually misspoke. The worst case is Technocratic control a la Brave New World, where autonomy is lost & cyber (regulatory) divisions take over all aspects of life. Nothing screams dystopia more than a technocrat with a God complex exerting one's will to control the lives of the population. Human life is sacred & spiritual and the Technocratic movement as it stands today spoils this light to create a horde of undead.
Bringing up the first amendment is a way to emphasize the importance of the free exchange of ideas. It only legally restrains the government, but now other powers have gained the ability to regulate speech. The principle is the same no matter who the censor is.
For example, look at how the lab-leak hypothesis for covid was censored. There were many good questions being raised that were shot down as a "conspiracy theory", and were censored.
This is a net negative for everyone.
However you justify censorship, it still has a cost. Legalistic arguments about the first amendment and who it restrains doesn't change the fact that the free exchange of ideas has value and that is being taken away from us. Note that I'm not specifying who is doing the censoring in any of my arguments. Censorship has a cost all on it's own.
If we sit a team down to discuss the architecture of a software application or how to solve a problem in a general, is it better to get all opinions or for some opinions to be forbidden?
I believe the answer is it depends. If someone is being destructive to general collaboration, then censoring them would likely help the group reach a better decision.
If the censorship goes further and prohibits certain ideas, what is the cost? If it's a bad idea, probably not too much. What if it's a good idea? What if it's an idea that would have halved the effort for this particular solution? The cost of censorship starts to increase!
How do you know the value of an opinion that you don't hear? Silencing dissent is a component of group think. I found this example which shouldn't be controversial:
Claiming that these corporations have the "freedom of speech" is just like claiming that the government has the "freedom of speech". These corporations are an extension of the government. This is why a company needs to hire many lawyers, have a political presence, & often has many ex-3 letter agency executive/board members once it reaches a certain size. These corporations can do things that the official government cannot, yet they are controlled by the same networks that control the official government.
And restricting speech is not speech itself and does not deserve protection, anymore than me gagging your mouth is an expression of the freedom of speech. Restriction of speech does happen, no matter how much one tried to redefine or recontextualize the circumstances. Slavery also does happen today. We can play all sorts of cognitive games to deny these realities, but people are still affected in an exploitative way, which is disgusting, immoral, & goes against everything that brings the best out of humanity.
The father of Scientism demonstrates the arrogance of the adherents of Scientism/Technocracy and the reason why any critics of Scientism/Technocracy are demonized. This is why adherents of Scientism/Technocracy strive to infringe on peoples', particularly critics', freedom of speech by funneling markets & discourse through captured platforms & restricting participation & speech on these platforms. Technocrats in the government actively support & play rearguard these endeavors.
"A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men."
–Henri de Saint-Simon
Anybody reading this can get a thorough education on the Techcracy via Patrick Wood's books. "Technocracy, The Hard Road to World Order" is his latest...
Social media companies don't restrict your speech, because you were never entitled to use their services in the first place. If you compel them to distribute your message, you are violating their rights. You don't even seem to understand the issue at hand here.
As for the rest of your vacuous comment, it's like a high school sophomore trying to appear deep.
Your insults only expose the fact that you have no interest in ethics or logic, only power. Like a spoiled brat, you want power over other people & you want it now. What a way to run a civilization. The inconsiderate spoiled brats want to tell everybody else what to do.
You haven't responded to my point above, and instead went on another irrelevant diatribe that I don't care about.