> We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail?
When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky?
> Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like? What have they done to prove they are trustworthy at this point?
To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations?
> Shutting down open discussion around this topics will only make the situation worse, not better.
You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously?
The CDC of the past is not the CDC of today. It never is the same, people come and go. The make up of the political structure has overwhelmed the program:
1. CDC director overrules recommendation of board (political reasoning alone).
2. Dr. Faucci admits he lied about the amount of people needed to be vaccinated.
3. Dr. Faucci admits they lied about the need for masks. Which if we look at the data it is messy and shows only a 20% efficacy. If we look at recommendations prior to this outbreak, the documents say not to bother with masks. Do not tell me it was for the greater good to lie, they lied. Which people were told to shut up and listen when we all questioned the lie.
4. The head of the CDC is having an emotional break down on TV when all metrics are trending good (1Q). Why was she having a break down when the public data shows something else. Could it be she had knowledge of something?
The point is, agencies change, they adapt to the political masters. We have these three examples plus my fourth curiosity that point to the government agencies no longer being trustworthy in their guidance.
> When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky?
I would certainly have thought so. Are you referring to something specific or just sowing seeds of doubt?
> To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations?
To me? No. I can read the whitepapers myself and understand the risks I'm taking. I'm fully vaccinated btw.
Regardless, you're sort of missing the point here. Shutting down dissenting views is authoritarianism and categorically not free speech. And, to be clear, it's not just "misinformation" that's being banned. There are legitimate issues with vaccines people should be informed of such as early warning signs of myocarditis that are also not allowed on YT.
> The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith.
"They" are? Who is "they?" Are you claiming there's no point in discussing this? We still haven't sorted out where the virus originated and simply showing it is likely zootonic in origin isn't enough. Wuhan was doing active research on zootonic coronaviruses.
> I would certainly have thought so. Are you referring to something specific or just sowing seeds of doubt?
No, I'm genuinely asking you. Do you know?
> I can read the whitepapers myself and understand the risks I'm taking.
Oh you can? Do you have a background in immunology?
> Shutting down dissenting views is authoritarianism and categorically not free speech.
> There are legitimate issues with vaccines people should be informed of such as early warning signs of myocarditis that are also not allowed on YT.
That people are freely allowed to discuss with their doctors. Why on earth anyone expects to get medical advice from a for profit entertainment website is beyond me.
> Are you claiming there's no point in discussing this?
I literally wrote:
> I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way
You're asking me to research something there's no evidence of? No, I'm not aware nor have I ever heard of this being a thing until now.
> Oh you can? Do you have a background in immunology?
No, but I took more than one statistics class in undergrad which is enough for me to make decisions I'm comfortable with.
> That people are freely allowed to discuss with their doctors. Why on earth anyone expects to get medical advice from a for profit entertainment website is beyond me.
Using your own point, doctors do not have a background in immunology. So I'm not allowed to read and interpret medical papers, but the same logic doesn't apply to a medical practitioner who has nearly zero formal education in medical research. Which is it?
> I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way
I apologize for misinterpreting your comment, but in my defense, it's fairly confusing as to what point you're trying to make. On the one hand you say that you support "discussion of these topics in a meaningful way." On the other hand, you criticize me for desiring to read medical papers in an attempt to make informed decisions. You even go so far as to suggest I should blindly listen to my community college grad MP when it comes to medical advice. Which by the way, this is the same person that got me hooked on PPIs when I had GERD which is now causing joint issues and then tried to feed me opiates when I started experiencing said joint issues.
> On the one hand you say that you support "discussion of these topics in a meaningful way."
> On the other hand, you criticize me for desiring to read medical papers in an attempt to make informed decisions.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm trying to say we ought to have a meaningful discussion about these topics and bad actors are making it worse to do so. People who simply take those talking points ("makes you think huh?") and regurgitate them and THEN say "why can't we discuss this" don't faithfully want discussions, they want EYEBALLS (read -> $$). I can't tell if this you're viewpoint, but you sure are sharing a lot of the same characteristics of these people ("I can research everything myself damnit!")
You absolutely should have the right to read white papers AND also trust that the government entity that interprets such articles has your best interest in mind. But you're insinuating that we should simply just have research/white papers and leave it to the general populace to interpret whatever they want. That is, IMHO, more dangerous than the alternative, especially when it comes to vaccinations where there is a near binary effect in place (you either get herd immunity or you don't, everything in between is potentially worse).
>When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky?
They weren't?
>You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously?
Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
> Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
> Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
Wait, you can't just posit something, argue as if it's fact, and then ask someone who challenges it to do the legwork of disproving it. If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous to then say "happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise"; I'm the one that asserted that.
> They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point.
There's a difference between losing eyeballs to bad faith actors because they steal some of your market, and having your market banned because there are also bad faith actors in it.
I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton due to forced labor, but wouldn't say that the solution to that is too ban all cotton products, even those responsibly produced.
Perhaps a more relevant analogy: Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf, but I'd hope they wouldn't ban books discussing why Hitler's platform and rhetoric were appealing to the Germans of the time. Frankly speaking, I wouldn't want even Mein Kampf to be banned: silencing bad or evil ideas makes them enticing (note the popularity of "check out/buy a banned book" events throughout libraries and bookstores).
Good faith actors being harmed by bad faith actors is always going to be a thing. Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors seems like something we shouldn't be okay with, though.
> If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous
If the you argument proposed (blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices) was factual and I'm asking you to provide evidence of such how is that disingenuous?
> I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton
> Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf,
These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies).
> Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors
Agreed, but who's the other good faith actor you're referring to here? YouTube?
> These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies).
This seems the same to me.
A book with a flashy cover or title is more likely to be purchased because it's attention grabbing. Action movies have trailers with explosions and one-liner quips because they're attention grabbing. Cereal boxes say "new and improved!" because it's attention grabbing. Magazines and cable news ask "Does Jell-o cause cancer?" because it's attention grabbing.
Controversial content gets more clicks because it's attention grabbing, so I would absolutely expect that to be more enticing than the same information packaged less flamboyantly (just like I'd expect more attention-grabbing books, movies, cereal, and magazines to perform better as well.)
>Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
Just to confirm, are you claiming that the US government actively suppressed anti-vaccine views when the polio vaccine came out?
>Would or should?
sorry, should.
>They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
And what do you think about that? Specifically, good faith actors getting swept up by bad faith actors? Is that fine? Should we do something about it?
Sounds like a misunderstanding then. Your initial comment was
> > We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail?
>When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky?
The quoted poster seemed to be anti-censorship, so when you replied in opposition to that, it gave the impression that you thought there was actually censorship going on for polio vaccines.
>but isn't that precisely what YT is doing..? They're banning bad faith actors here, no?
They're banning everyone, bad/good faith actors alike. That's bad and should be stopped.
> They're banning everyone, bad/good faith actors alike. That's bad and should be stopped.
Are you sure? From the article: (emphasis mine)
> YouTube is taking down several video channels associated with high-profile anti-vaccine activists including Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who experts say are partially responsible for helping seed the skepticism that’s contributed to slowing vaccination rates across the country.
> As part of a new set of policies aimed at cutting down on anti-vaccine content on the Google-owned site, YouTube will ban any videos that claim that commonly used vaccines approved by health authorities are ineffective or dangerous. The company previously blocked videos that made those claims about coronavirus vaccines, but not ones for other vaccines like those for measles or chickenpox.
That sounds like to me they are discretionarily deciding who gets banned, no?
In terms of human viruses, governments have only eradicated smallpox and almost polio. We will not be able to eradicate SARS-CoV-2 the same way. Unlike smallpox and polio there are animal hosts (most other mammal species can carry and transmit the virus) and the vaccines don't reliably prevent infection. So I encourage everyone to get vaccinated to protect themselves, but we need to face reality that the virus will never be eradicated.
When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky?
> Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like? What have they done to prove they are trustworthy at this point?
To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations?
> Shutting down open discussion around this topics will only make the situation worse, not better.
You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously?