Hacker News Reader

I agree with most of your points, but "both sides lie" really creates a false equivalence. Conspiracy peddlers are radically further removed from reality than the government/science communicators. Of course they are not perfect, but putting them on the same level as covid deniers is absurd.

Government/science communicators spent the first month of the pandemic denying it ("Taiwan doesn't exist", "border closures are racist"), the next month lying ("masks don't work"), and the next year politically bickering ("Trump's vaccine shouldn't be trusted" before election, "Trump's fault that people don't trust the vaccine" now) and downplaying the "lab leak" scenario that is only now acceptable in mainstream media ("acceptable" as in "not cause of banning").

They dug their own hole (and they keep digging).

My point stands that what covid deniers put out is worse by orders of magnitude. One could argue that sci/govt should be held to a higher standard than randos on Twitter, and the criticism you put forward is probably valid, but still it is wrong to equate the two.

I disagree. That's like saying "yeah church is lying about evolution but that's nothing compared with the claims of flat earthers!" I mean sure, but the point is that the church/WHO/governments have massive megaphones which they use to spread false information (sometimes honestly believing it's true), whereas 9 times out of 10 nobody listens to loony conspiracy theorists anyways.

E.g. conspiracy theorists were spouting "China designed this virus" on Twitter from the beginning, but I never took those claims seriously (I mean, it's technically possible, but I'm 100% certain that anyone claiming this has absolutely 0 proof of it and are just saying it to stir shit up); on the other hand, government suppression of "lab leak" theory (and intentionally conflating it with the crazy "lab designed" theory) was extremely concerning.

I think we are pretty much in agreement then that conspiracy nuts spread a higher level of lies, but that institutions should be held to a higher standard?

The reason I object to the false equivalence between the two is that it helps legitimize the conspiracy nuts, which is worse all things being equal, regardless of mistakes made by institutions.

Yes, conspiracies are not built from reason. They're either something for someone to cling to, or, a scam from my experience.

My argument is that by holding ourselves to a higher standard that eventually these morons selling magical promises will be left exposed as liars to 90%+ of people.

It's not easy, the biggest problem (imo) at the moment is that when these groups latch onto a small fact and spin lies most people are branding the small fact as misinformation of wrong other than accepting a common ground. This is dangerous and erodes the position of having sane intercourse.

Calmly explaining why people are wrong and explaining the reasoning behind this is always better imo than simply slapping someone down as happens all to often.

Not meaning to sound like I'm disagreeing, just trying to explain my position.

I'm probably wrong, I normally am about something, and I've probably gone counter to published papers on human nature but this is my 2 pence based on science outreach and seeing it done right and wrong.

It is a logical fallacy to ignore an argument because of one small distruth or lie.

Now that's out the way...

Unfortunately I'm talking about people's emotions and their decision to trust a source of information. This is clearly NOT a purely logical situation.

There is a false expectation that govt groups are always correct and don't admit mistakes,even if they were correct as they could be at the time. Failure to own these mistakes publically and discuss the shortcomings and failings puts you into the same level of distrust as a scientist view's a snake oil salesman.

I take part on science outreach and one of the most damming things is having to explain when some media celebrity scientist said something utterly stupid and not correct. You then get the envetable "who can i trust" argument and the best way to resolve that is to share more information in a respectable slow and distant way...

Aka actually educating people.

also, lying requires intent - saying somthing you know to be false, and is not the same as making mistakes, errors, etc.

> Were all dancing around the elephant in the room that clearly everyone panicked due to china's lies at the start of 2020

Given what I've witnessed since the start of the pandemic in my own country, it seems more plausible to me that china's actions are a product of people and states not knowing how to deal with an unknown situation and changing it's course as situations unfold. What are the lies China has told that I'm not aware of?

Providing the evidence of no human to human transmission in February springs to mind as well as cases increasing perfectly exponentially in the real world for a real viral outbreak for several weeks.

Failure to share correct information or worse inventing false data is tantamount to lying unfortunately.

Always interesting to see how you can get down voted without evidence to the contrary being provided.

I'm very welcome to be told how I'm wrong in this regard but as it stands these concerns alone I raised are on record and points of concern.

I'm willing to admit china is sharing better information now. At the same time that they start to blame Australian beef and American imports for the mythical typhoid Mary. Always helps to drip feed enough information to get slapped on the wrist by the WHO for not fully cooperating rather than standing to be accused of not taking part...

The governments would actually need to fund multi billion PR campaigns to combat the disinformation.

Apart from the political feasibility there's also the question of return on the investment. If this caused a 5% increase in the number of vaccinations, would it be worthwhile?

Even then there'd be people who think these are just two sides, and both of them make good and equally valid points.

I'm sorry you can't make an argument on return for investment when the military is being organised to roll out the needed vaccinations and the economy is being shutdown due to the outbreak in my mind. Unless the politicians just don't give a dam about educating the population they're trying to save.

In not suggesting we can ever change 100% of opinions 100% of the time, but open clear communication is the only proper tool for contering misinformation. Alas we seem to be restoring to the old teachers approach of sit down and shut up or you get the cane for speaking out. Which is damaging for public trust in the long run.

If it were up to me, the vaccination would be obligatory for everyone worldwide, the virus would become extinct and we'd go back to no masks within a year. mRNA vaccination plants and research would be funded by taxes.

That policy and openly communicating it to the public would get my ass shoveled out of any government position within a fortnight of course.

That's called totalitarianism m'lord and I'm not sure the proles agree with assessment about the strong need for this and the learned elders have shown there is a lack of a need for this as a blanket policy. Whilst you return to your throne we'll begin inoculation of the at risk groups until the problem goes away.

Sure, see you in 3 years when we introduce the 11th lockdown while vaccinated twenty somethings make tiktok careers out of denialism.

Look around, it's already here...

Sure it would get you kicked out, but it is unlikely to do anything to hurt the trust of the public at large towards politicans, because you told them the truth.

As I read you, and I could be wrong, it appears that your real complaint is that you can only get your strategy through by lying, but lying is bad so we should make lying not bad so you can ram your strategy through. If my reading is right, then it appears to be the same attitude that the plandemic people claim politicians have.

A much more honest solution is to end all restrictions once everybody has been offered a vaccine. You take it, or you don't.

We can discuss research funding once this is over.

Because of the way we collectively make decisions, there is no efficient strategy that we could get through. What we have is likely close to the best that we can achieve.

Stuff like plandemic is a byproduct of how our society is organised, and how our minds work and so is the attitude that politicians take. They act close to optimal within the framework that they work in.

Complaining that elected officials lie or not tell us the truth comes from a need for stability and predictability that we're looking for in authority figures, which is an illusion, and every leader knows that perfectly.

Your proposed solution is an expression of that need. You want to make some sort of deal with someone, that's going to make the situation more bearable to you. This is analogous to a child that gets promised an hour of watching cartoons if they finish their homework.

Because in this situation nobody really knows how long it will last, or what we need to do to solve it, we're unsatisfied, scared and vulnerable. And easy pray for people that want to capture our minds, and use it for their goals, be it political, financial, or just grabbing the attention that they need.

Manufacturing Consent.

Hmmm no. I'm not advocating this on any way shape or form.

I'm encouraging discussion and debate and that people be informed to the point their decision can be trusted.

Being a bit obsoletist about discussion and presenting evidence is bad is extremely concerning.