Personally I just want this Pandemic to be over as soon as possible, thus I want vaccination rates to go as high as possible, but I don't think banning disinformation will achieve that, it will only put fuel to the fire. Plus I remember when discussing the possibility of a lab leak was considered misinformation. Banning people who don't support the narrative or excepted wisdom could be abused to suppress people blowing the whistle on actual conspiracies.
This whole thing is really a group of people trying to jam their opinion down everybody else's mouth holes.
It is truly frightening to me how many people are so eager to shut down any kind of debate. The science around covid and it's mitigations are far from settled.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/federal-judge-claims-... Stuff like this, and worse
I mean what is all this clickbait outlier crap the media feeds everybody about that one poor sick covid kid who died? Then everybody thinks that kids are dying all over the place when that isn't even close to true.
Should we ban all clickbait?
Define "most"? 20% of Americans believe the covid vaccine contains a microchip so they can be tracked. There are so many reasons that is even worse than thinking that it could cause you to be sterilized that I think anyone trying to claim "people know better" aren't being honest with themselves.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx54yn/a-shocking-number-of-...
And you can get any percent you want with bad low sample size polls. Come on.
What kind of misinformation are people being fed to be so very far off? Why aren’t we doing anything about that?
Tempting...
(I'm still anti-censorship, but that's quite a carrot to offer.)
Also early on, for way too long, human to human transmission was officially not happening per the WHO.
I'm among them. Not that my own comments have a tremedous reach, but I take not intentionally being wrong very seriously.
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/a654bef0b15c01385957002590d8e...
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3abaa5e03fca0138fcb6002590d8e...
Science isn't a pursuit of some ideological or traditional purity. It's a seeking of knowledge and truth. When evidence and understanding change, so does science.
What you're advocating for is a group of voices who seem collectively alligned at precisely opposing whatever the weight of evidence demonstrates at any given point in time. And I can assure you that this is a poor guide to truth.
The fact that a slippery slope can be identified within a premise does not mean that it exists, and straining at flies while you let a camel pass is an issue that has plagued humanity for thousands of years, and still we are no closer to recognizing it or solving it than we were back then.
The internet isn't a new thing under the sun. It's just the same old things faster and more widespread.
There have always been liars and manipulators who enjoy subverting expectations and undermining honest people. They've mastered the art of seeming perfectly reasonable while demanding the impossible.
They say things like, "For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know" and "I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions", and other such seemingly reasonable poppycock.
The paradox of tolerance is mentioned quite often, in that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance as otherwise the intolerant will destroy the tolerant.
In the same way, there is a paradox of information, that for information to be reliable and free flowing, it must be verifiable from trustworthy sources, and unverifiable and untrustworthy information has to be dammed off from the flow of information.
If untrustworthy news is allowed to flourish, then liars and connivers will flourish as well, with Machiavellian intentions to profit off of the lies and confusion they sow along the way.
It's happening now and if you don't believe me look at how many people have proudly proclaimed their desire to know untrue information as their right as a citizen of the internet, and how much distrust they have towards people like the CDC who gain nothing from lying to the population.
They hold the innocent guilty until they prove themselves innocent and beyond reproach while the people investing in whatever the next quack covid treatment of the week will be they laud and sing praises for them, becoming their enlisted personal army.
It's madness and it's all because we allow every lying huckster who can spin a good tale to keep on babbling and dogpile anyone who disagrees with this practice.
This is like telling someone not to treat a broken arm because everyone dies eventually.
What it should be looked at is like jump-starting a dodgy engine. You give it some fuel and some spark and it spits and sputters and dies. You tinker with it and do it again.
If we tinker with the engine of truthfulness long enough, giving it enough fuel and enough spark, eventually we could work out the kinks and get it running. Sure, there will be a lot of false starts and backfires, but it can be made to work.
That is worthwhile, and that's what I'll keep advocating for. Too bad you and others like you refuse to be on my side, it would make it a lot easier.
This is a classic strawman. It also ignores the entirety of history where the same wrong claim was made.
If you declare misinformation as a reason for banning something, you really just create an arms race to declare anything you don't like as misinformation in order to ban it.
Misinformation is fought in the market of free speech and ideas and critical thinking. Not by banning it. That's just might makes right.
Because Reddit is not an unbiased information repository. It amplifies some messages and suppresses others, by numerous mechanisms. Some of those are under direct admin control, some subreddit moderators, some the collective hivemind of users, and a large portion through direct manipulation and gaming by various sources.
The platform is already tilted. The question isn't "who" or "how", but what should it tilt towards: bulshit or truth?
I still take issue with your inclusion of “known misinformation” and “known factual information”. Sure, in the case of the vaccines, the known facts and misinfo seem to be pretty clear cut and that in this particular case, the people spreading the misinfo are wrong. That doesn’t mean that at some point in the future we won’t face a situation where the facts are less clear and the debate IS legitimate. We saw this with lab leak, and we even saw this with the use of masks early on.
And even now it is highly debatable that masks worn by most people are effective. And even if they are effective, do they need to be mandated? And even then, what about kids?
Society needs healthy debate.
Unfortunately, I'm sure the powermoderators behind this would love to set the precedent that they can use their leverage to demand censorship and other changes to site policies. The pendulum will never actually swing the other way on Reddit, which is really the territory that they care about.
Banning antivax nonsense during a pandemic is no brainer. It is light moderation not heavy. I assume you have no objection to spam or troll moderation, how is this any heavier.
If you think about it for a couple more minutes the weakness of your position may become more clear to you