Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonlaramburu | Hacker News Reader

> Wrong lesson, you just need to be better sources of information.

Ah yes, the Joe Rogan angle: the only way to fight misinformation is to speak the truth louder and more convincingly. How exactly can one have a good faith debate on say, vaccine effectiveness, against an opponent who believes COVID-19 does not exist?

View on HN

A debate without an agreed upon premise is a terrible setup in any context.

That is effectively what is being proposed by OP. The pro-vaxx side should 'take the high road' 100% of the time and only engage in good faith debate. Speak the truth loudly and proudly, but don't you dare criticize those who peddle 'alternative facts.'

Telling the truth is an unfortunate consequence of taking the high road.

You’ve not addressed my point. If we are going to penalize one side for failing to engage in a good faith debate 100% of the time, we should hold the other side to the same standard as well.

If you group anyone who takes the opposing view together then it is unfortunately easy to spoil the well with false opponents. If I make statements against the idea of a vaccine mandate should my arguments be construed to represent belief that these vaccines induce 5g tracking? No, so those in power are obliged to accept all arguments on their individual merits.

>those in power are obliged to accept all arguments on their individual merits.

Ok, so if you accept that those in power can address arguments on their individual merits, then what is the problem with a private company (youtube, NYtimes etc) removing content so ludicrous and ungrounded in reality that it could hurt people (eg that vaccines contain 5G chips, that covid can be cured by inhaling hydrogen peroxide, or that ICU doctors are actually killing COVID patients)?

I don't see discussions on natural immunity being censored on youtube et al. Yet our administrators in power play talk to the hand on the subject. There is plenty of scientific acknowledgement of the relative risks based on comorbidities including age, obesity and diabetes. Yet those in power proclaim mandate without differentiation. The strongest arguments towards mandating against someones will seem to hinge on ease of administration. No thanks on that!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com