
GoFundMe Bans Anti-Vaxxers Who Raise Money to Spread Misinformation - ccnafr
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gofundme-bans-anti-vaxxers-who-raise-money-to-spread-misinformation
======
luiscleto
Starting this with a few disclaimers:

1) I unequivocally believe all anti-vaxxers are wrong, 2) I absolutely support
efforts to fight their misinformation, 3) I don't even necessarily think it
was a bad decision by gofundme to do this;

Now, what I'd like to question is the effectiveness of taking down those
campaigns. My points:

1) I doubt that an average user scrolling through gofundme would see and
decide to support such a campaign, I'd imagine most of the funding comes from
the links being directly shared

2) The above makes me think such campaigns will simply move to a GoFundMe
competitor and be equally (un?)successful, effectively nullifying any changes

3) Gives more attention + victim points to anti vaxxers

4) If their discourse is further pushed out of mainstream platforms, does it
actually reduce the spread of their ideas or just limit their exposure to
counter-arguments and public condemnation?

Edit: formatting

~~~
maxaf
Anti-vaxxers are like terrorists: they don't really _do_ much per se, but the
FUD they spread does immense harm to society. Defunding & deplatforming such
groups is a methodology that is practically inescapable for as long as laymen
are liable to believe anti-vaxxers or be afraid of terrorists.

Of course, the real solution is education: both of the purveyors of
misinformation and of those who fall victim to it. That's a multi-generational
process that should ideally happen in parallel with short-term fixes.

~~~
creaghpatr
>[Anti-vaxxers] are like terrorists: they don't really do much per se, but the
FUD they spread does immense harm to society. Defunding & deplatforming such
groups is a methodology that is practically inescapable for as long as laymen
are liable to believe [anti-vaxxers] or be afraid of terrorists.

You could replace that phrase with many different ideologies. Would you?

~~~
astrodust
They're not like terrorists, they are terrorists. Some of these diseases we
have vaccines for are vicious and could kill more than any suicide bomber
could dream of.

~~~
creaghpatr
What about climate-change deniers? Aren't they killing us all with their
ideology?

~~~
astrodust
Yes, on an even larger scale.

------
daeken
This misinformation is literally killing people. A private company fighting
that is absolutely something to celebrate; GoFundMe gets my full support here.

~~~
zeropnc
Countering “misinformation” by correct information is a far better approach
than censorship.

The logical fallacy of “censorship is okay when I know it’s wrong” sets such a
dangerous precedent, yet it’s downright celebrated by America’s left.

It’s quite frightening.

~~~
openasocket
Is this really censorship, though? They aren't removing information, GoFundMe
isn't a blogging site, they are simply refusing to do business with people
they disagree with. That's more or less a boycott. Is boycotting something or
someone censorship?

~~~
zeropnc
It is in a world where monopolies are a thing.

------
w0mbat
The anti-vaxx delusion is a contagious viral illness of the brain that enables
the spread of biological viruses that do physical harm. This is not a free
speech issue, it's a public health issue.

~~~
RobertRoberts
Did you know that vaccine protection doesn't last a lifetime?

And that all the adults that got vaccinated as a child in the 50s, 60s, 70s,
80s and maybe even the 90s are no longer immune? But none of those people have
been required to get immunized again to maintain herd immunity.

This means we've been at 50% coverage or less for decades. Maybe there is some
missing information that needs to be discussed?

~~~
krastanov
You are saying people are not getting booster shots? My parents and I have
ours roughly every other decade...

~~~
RobertRoberts
No one that I know (adults) have. When was the last time you got a booster
shot for smallpox?

Also, Merck has been caught falsifying their data on at least one of their
vaccines for decades. But this is not commonly shared or known.

~~~
_underfl0w_
Do you have a reference you can cite for that?

~~~
RobertRoberts
Two virologists that worked for Merck:

[https://www.courthousenews.com/Class-Says-Merck-Lied-
About-M...](https://www.courthousenews.com/Class-Says-Merck-Lied-About-Mumps-
Vaccine/)

------
cpr
The one question 'pro-vaxxers' can't answer is: If vaccines work, why would
someone fear non-vaccinated people?

Isn't that just taking 'anti-vaxxers' out of the gene pool?

I say this as someone who isn't anti-vaccine _per se_ but only anti-unsafe-
vaccines. And the safety of vaccines is very much in question today, which you
wouldn't know if you only read and believe the mainstream media.

~~~
astura
Illnesses killing non-vaccinated people is a health hazard to the innocent.
People who can't get vaccines (too young, too sick, immunocompromised) rely on
herd immunity to protect them. People who can get vaccines but don't endanger
those who can't get vaccines. They also put a unneeded strain on the medical
system.

We also have the power to eliminate some illnesses completely so that vaccines
are no longer needed in the future generations. We've done this with smallpox
and we are close with polio.

As far as "safe/unsafe," that's disingenuous, there's no such thing - no
medical intervention is completely without risk, but we know that the benefits
of vaccines on the marketplace today unequivocally outweigh the (very minor)
risks for the vast majority of healthy people.

------
esaym
I'll stop being anti-vax when the corporations that manufacture vaccines can
be held for legal liability. You do know they lobbied congress in the 1980's
for legal immunity right? Would you actually drive a car who's parent company
had legal immunity against any manufacturing defects? Probably not... Either
way, the insert that comes with every vaccine bottle is a great resource. If
you're too lazy to dig up the inserts on the FDA or CDC website there is a
nice website that correlates many of them here:
[https://vaccine.guide/](https://vaccine.guide/) Its a huge money making
machine that cannot be sued for medical malpractice. That should raise
anyone's flag. To say vaccines are 100% safe means you are either ill-informed
or you don't have kids and therefore don't care.

I highly doubt gofundme had a personal conviction over this issue. This is a
company that is being influenced by an outside source. That should be
concerning.

~~~
krastanov
Every time I get a flu shot I get an info packet about the Harm Compensation
Program [https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-
compensation/index.html](https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html)

Is this not a trivial counterargument to your claims: anyone that was harmed
by a vaccine is eligible for a lot of money. Yet few people reach for this
fund.

~~~
esaym
Not at all. You can spend tons of money to put your case before a special
"vaccine court" who rarely does anything while the case drags on and on until
you run out of money to fund your own case.

------
squozzer
What bothers me about the ban is that anti-vaxxers - at least the ones I've
read - are not Luddites.

I've never heard an anti-vaxxer say things such as "It's God's (or Gaia's)
Will that Johnny died of measles."

They believe, wrongly in my opinion, that vaccines cause other medical
problems serious enough to justify not using vaccines. To me, that's
legitimate dissent.

Given the stakes, maybe GoFundMe did the right thing.

But what's an acceptable threshold of risk?

Because, for various reasons, anti-vaxxing has become a political problem as
well as a health problem. Maybe more so.

The political aspect - i.e. GoFundMe being vulnerable to political charges of
endangering the public - is probably what drove GoFundMe to institute the ban.

Which leaves other politically charged uses of GoFundMe vulnerable.

~~~
baddox
> They believe, wrongly in my opinion, that vaccines cause other medical
> problems serious enough to justify not using vaccines. To me, that's
> legitimate dissent.

I don't get it. How is this any more legitimate than actually being a Luddite
and saying "technology and modern medicine is bad"?

Would you say that racism and bigotry against minorities becomes legitimate if
it's phrased as "this minority group will give you a disease if you let them
near you"? Because that's actually a pretty classic feature of racist
propaganda.

~~~
squozzer
>that vaccines cause other medical problems serious enough to justify not
using vaccines = talks about vaccines.

>this minority group will give you a disease if you let them near you = talks
about people.

HN, just fucking delete my account and ban my IP address, as you obviously
have a huge fucking problem with my fair-mindedness.

~~~
baddox
Both examples are about diseases. Your claim was that their argument is of a
legitimate form because it makes a claim about medical risk. My rhetorical
argument was of the same form.

------
Not_a_pizza
I get that anti-vaxers are considered dangerous. Equally dangerous is the
revolving door between the CDC and vaccination companies which prevent correct
levels of scrutinization when batches of vaccinations or specific vaccines are
deemed unsafe. Without this comfortable level of accountability, vaccine
companies can move forward indefinitely without supplying realistic testing
which could prevent detrimental affects that very rarely occur, but can
happen. Furthermore, sending bad batches of vaccines downstream to poorer
countries should be illegal. Certainly things like this have happened
historically.

Additionally, the way the government has cozied up to vaccination companies to
prevent nearly any lawsuit from taking place related to vaccines seems
ridiculous. Vaccines do represent a public good, and as such some protection
seems appropriate, but to make it seem like the best possible thing we could
ever do to protect populations? I think that's a touch overreaching.

People should use vaccines, absolutely. However, vaccine tech has not
progressed much in 50 years and part of this may be attributed to the
protection of vaccine companies.

~~~
daeken
Evidence?

~~~
Not_a_pizza
[https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/recalls.html](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/recalls.html)

[https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/asia/faulty-vaccine-china-
int...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/asia/faulty-vaccine-china-
intl/index.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/world/middleeast/syrian-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/world/middleeast/syrian-
children-die-after-vaccinations.html)

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-
gerberding/former-c...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-
gerberding/former-cdc-head-lands-vaccine-job-at-merck-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act)

~~~
daeken
Your links don't say what you think they do. 1) You're blaming the CDC for not
holding people accountable, then linking the CDC ... holding them accountable.
2) The second two links don't have anything to do with the US, thus aren't in
the CDC's purview.

Additionally, none of these talk about intentionally bad vaccines, which is
one of your claims.

~~~
Not_a_pizza
None of your rebuke is actually accurate.

The CDC acknowledges that batches of bad vaccines do occur. How can a vaccine
be bad except that (1) it doesn't work or (2) it actually hurts the patient?

Also, people from the CDC do leave to work for pharma companies. That is
true...so a revolving door exists. Decide for yourself if that could produce
unwanted collusion.

The other links support my claims that Vaccine companies send shoddy vaccines
to other countries even if they are rejected here. World health should be
about more than profit. Vaccines can be helpful, but not without honest
discussions which Vaccine suppliers seem unwilling to have.

------
minikites
I don't think this is a free speech issue. What's the difference between
promoting a scientific falsehood that puts public health at grave risk and
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater other than the proximity of damage done?

~~~
dragonwriter
> yelling "fire" in a crowded theater

Can we stop invoking unsupported non-binding dicta offered to illustrate the
decision in a case which has since been overturned and is widely regarded as a
travesty infringing on core political speech as if it were some kind of firm
legal principal useful as a yardstick against which speech can be measured to
determine if it is unprotected?

------
aetherson
It's weird how much the anti-vaxxers have become the whipping boys of the
current US. Is it because they've got both the smell of dirty hippies and also
anti-science religious conservatives and also annoying soccer moms so everyone
can love to hate them?

Not giving your kid vaccinations is stupid. But on the scale of "ways you can
mess up your kid," it's pretty mild. In terms of the amount of harm that non-
vaccinated kids do to everyone else, it's extremely near zero. Almost
certainly, if you drive a car more than a few times a year, you're endangering
those around you more than any anti-vaxxer is.

And if you actually want to convince anti-vaxxers to change their ways, this
is clearly not the right way to do it. Pouring hate on people feels (scarily)
good in a lot of ways, but it doesn't change the minds of the people you're
demonizing. Is there any clearer demonstration of this than the complete
persistence of anti-vaxxing sentiment in the face of steadily increasing
screams of protest over the last 5 years?

~~~
hellllllllooo
> Not giving your kid vaccinations is stupid. But on the scale of "ways you
> can mess up your kid," it's pretty mild.

Measles and other dangerous diseases returning to the US after being
iradicated is not a small issue. This effects other children's lives. It's
selfish and harmful and we have a safe reliable solution.

People have become complacent to the horrible effects of diseases because of
the protections vaccines have provided them over the last 50+ years.

~~~
aetherson
I don't disagree that people are complacent, but on a factual level, most kids
who don't get vaccinations do not get measles. Most who do get measles have a
few weeks of discomfort and get over it. Most who do get measles do not give
it to anyone else except maybe other unvaccinated kids.

In the years before a measles vaccine, there were about 500 deaths per year
from measles (in the US). This was when the population was about half of what
it is now, so if we returned fully to that rate, there would be about 1,000
deaths per year from measles today.

There were no deaths from measles in the years 2016 or 2017, per this document
from the CDC:
[https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli...](https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatsslideset.pdf)

As I said, it's dumb not to get your kids vaccinated. I wish I could get
vaccinated to more things! It's like a super power!

But the amount of actual harm that anti-vaxxers are causing is miniscule,
certainly deeply out of proportion with the hate that they're getting.

And if you do sincerely desire to keep as many people as possible from getting
the measles, rather than desire to feel the rush of heaping hate on people,
then again, let me suggest that the current tactics _are not working_ , and
that de-escalating the rhetoric around this will do much more to let anti-
vaxxers relax and start listening to your data.

~~~
snowwrestler
> I don't disagree that people are complacent,

Good, because you're an example of someone who is complacent. This is what
complacency looks like:

> but on a factual level, most kids who don't get vaccinations do not get
> measles. Most who do get measles have a few weeks of discomfort and get over
> it. Most who do get measles do not give it to anyone else except maybe other
> unvaccinated kids.

"Most." "Most." "Most."

Let's say only one child in the entire U.S. will die of measles over the next
10 years. Now, let's say you know it will be your child, or your neice, or
your friend's child. Still seem acceptable?

The point is, there is _no_ acceptable level of measles incidence in the U.S.

Zero. Period.

> de-escalating the rhetoric around this will do much more to let anti-vaxxers
> relax and start listening to your data.

This is not true. The rhetoric around vaccines started out de-escalated,
because everyone thought the benefits were so obvious they did not need
defending. That's what allowed anti-vaccine scammers to gain mindshare in the
first place. Only by aggressive counteracting the anti-vaccine message will
that be reversed.

~~~
aetherson
My child won't get measles because my children are vaccinated. But my children
will get other diseases because most diseases can't be vaccinated against. And
also because I'm not willing to sacrifice every part of my life to make sure
that my children have the minimal possible risk of disease.

So my kids will, for example, go to school rather than be home-schooled or
tutored.

My kids are allowed to travel on BART, despite their propensity for touching
everything and putting their hands in their mouths. And, like, I'll try to
teach them not to do that, but it's not like I'll smack their hands.

My kids will probably at some point travel abroad to places where there are
disease risks that there aren't in the United States, and while if travel
vaccinations are available we'll certainly take advantage of them, we won't
refuse to travel to Africa because malaria exists.

Also, my children are allowed to travel by car -- even in the cars of say
their friends' parents who I haven't extensively vetted for maximally safe
driving habits.

And they're allowed to go into San Francisco and Oakland, cities that are
statistically more violent than their home town of San Bruno.

You can't remove all risk from people's lives -- even your own children's --
and if you try to, you end up making bad decisions.

This is a microcosm of what happens when you try to make policy around zero
tolerance policies. Look, I wish that everyone would vaccinate their kids. But
it simply doesn't make sense to sacrifice every other priority in the world to
try to chase down a very small number of people who object to doing that.

And aggressively countering the message isn't working -- which we would have
expected if we had seen every other case of aggressive messaging, which
broadly speaking is more about virtue signaling than convincing people. Anti-
vaxxers today are much, much, much more rooted in their opinions than they
were at the beginning.

------
RobertRoberts
This will inevitably lead to 1984 style censorship. The next 5 things censored
en mass will all be "objectionable", but then finally something good, normal
or simply against the orthodoxy of the day will be censored that no average
person would object to.

But then it will be too late, because everyone supported censoring ideas they
simply didn't like being spread.

Then it will be against the law to object to anything that is official
censored.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Your alternative suggestion then? All services are required to carry all
content, regardless of their owner’s views?

~~~
sathishmanohar
Or make owner-less decentralized platforms where a few humans can't be coerced
into cherry picking content to fit a particular agenda.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Yeah, you’ve just created a global child pornography network.

~~~
sathishmanohar
Thanks for displaying Ad hominem 101 !

~~~
matthewmacleod
I think you might need to look up the meaning of that, pal. The point is – a
globally decentralised publishing network also has obvious, quite possibly
terminal, problems.

