That sounds like an acceptable line to me.
I personally expect Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video to provide some sort of filtering. YouTube, on other hand, I don't expect any editorial control there and also for same reasons, I will never let my kid to access it alone.
Sure, good, I guess, but I'm left very confused.
It has more reviews than the Matrix.
This is why the whole popular vote thing doesn't really work for stuff like this.
Humans are way too easily biased.
Plus, this isn't just a black and white issue. What if a specific vaccine is released some day that turns out to be harmful? Harmful drugs frequently make it passed FDA approval only to be recalled later.
If one of them happens to be a specific vaccine, are we going to be censoring any and all media that tries to sound the alarm?
I think it went more like this: “We received a request from a US congressman this morning and followed it.”
Even worse than I imagined.
I don't have a take on this particular issue. But I think censorship is generally very dangerous, and I also think the Mill-style marketplace of ideas is a bad analogy bordering on the nonsensical the more I think about it.
Humans generally synchronize their ideas with each other and generally put minimal effort into validating their ideas because the synchronization process works enough as a heuristic.
The obvious attack then is to blast out intentionally harmful material in order to do things like cause disease outbreaks.
Our position can't just be that were defenseless against this kind of attack because censorship is more evil than disease outbreaks. There must be some nuance that so far nobody has articulated sufficiently well.
And none of this really even matters because Amazon is a private platform where I can almost never find the thing I want to watch. The amount of things not on Prime Video is so vast that it's hard to get up in arms about them removing something that has no obvious value other than to cause harm.
In other words if it's not grounded in empiricism it's a "fake fact."
The existence (and growth) of these "sceptics" is a testament to our inability to live up to your standards of critical thinking. I don't see how more pro-vaccine information could ever move the needle. The dynamics are rather asymmetric.
And the "all the information/everyone decides for themselves" strategy is fundamentally impossible, anyway: if you "trust no one", your only chance to verify the benefits of vaccines is to redo the studies yourself. That's impossible, obviously.
So one way or another, we need to delegate some editorial control to institutions/people that we can trust to take on part of the burdens of verifying information.
"Trust" does not imply blind allegiance here: these institutions have track records that you can spot-check. There will always be competition between them. And they tend to follow long-term incentives to keep your trust instead whatever short-term benefit could be derived from lying to you.
This isn't some obscure idea. It's so fundamental to the functioning of our society people don't even notice how they constantly rely on trust. Do you ever board a plane? You're trusting some FAA employees, and that they work within a legal structure that makes it unappealing for them to let a drunk pilot bribe them. Do you trust your spouse more than some random stranger not to steal from you? That's because you have known them for a decade, and (again) because they have far more to lose than to gain.
But you believing such a fringe nazi conspiracy theory couldn't kill me or my neighbour. My children wouldn't be at a real risk of dying from spending time with your kids, even if you indoctrinated them in your beliefs.
Some ideas are too dangerous to even get the chance to compete, especially in a country like USA with an education system so broken that 40% of its people believe that Psychic mediums can actually talk to the dead.
"It happened, and therefore it can happen again" is the motto here. It is the singularity of barbarism that has defined politics in Europe and the US ever since; the crown witness against militarism, nationalism, and populism.
I never mentioned holocaust denial... but let's go with that. So long as it never happens again, it's victimless. And because it's not going to happen again (nobody of consequence in any position of authority over govt, the media, or academia is a holocaust denier). Antisemitism certainly has victims, but in any case that's not the same thing as holocaust denialism.
> In fact, I would argue it's far more dangerous than these vaccine hoaxes.
Are you unaware that children have been dying of measles in ever greater numbers in the developed world due to the anti-vaccine movement? You certainly must be because some hypothetical danger that might occur in the future can't compare to children dying today.
What did you mean when you mentioned
> it being physically impossible to incinerate 6M humans in the span of time the nazi's had to do it in the ovens that they had to do it in
in an example??
Does the implementation of the "counter" matter to you? Do you think giant corporations should be the gatekeeper on what information/ideas/speech is permitted and what is not?
Just take religion and magic and superstition which have declined a lot.
It's a made up problem to justify authoritarian solutions.
A private company has a platform, and they can choose what content to allow on the platform. If you don't like it then enjoy your content elsewhere.
If anything, it sounds like a bit of a made up problem to declare Amazon (or another similarly sized tech company) is being authoritarian by removing anti-vaccination videos. I mean come on, we have a rich history of authoritarian governments murdering people for vocal dissent. I get that you disagree with private censorship, but let's have some perspective now...
This movement is successfully censoring billions of people. The gloves are softer than before but the scale is larger and this is a huge threat.
'This is not about competing markets of ideas', the HN users are saying, "these are real doctors -- real scientists -- saying that the 'facts' in these videos cannot possibly be true. Therefore these are 'false facts' and should be removed."
Much of the pro-choice argument regarding abortion is based on the idea that you own your own body.
My kids get vaccinated, but I sympathize with the anti-vaxxers arguments regarding governmental force.
It's hard to believe that tens of thousands of kids still die from the measles every year.
It's a difference of category, not degree.
But using the government to forcibly inject stuff into people's bodies seems wrong.
You say you support vaccination but you can't help but describe it without the necessary context, as if random Feds are strapping babies down against their will and pumping random fluids into them against their will for no particular reason.
You can make your argument and avoid the pointlessly nefarious language.
"Forcibly inject" tho is metaphorical but accurate. Many of the people here are advocating the mandating of (i.e. forcing) people to vaccinate their kids.
That's not completely wrong. The kids in my mother's generation for example were force-vaccinated in school and a lot of them suffered through life-threatening kidney issues caused by said vaccine. This is certainly not the case right now, but I have heard of people advocating for mandatory vaccination in schools.
I got my shots in the early 1970's and I don't remember there being any problems, fears, etc.
As far as I can tell, this all started about 10-15 years ago when the general public started jumping on the Internet in large numbers.
People will spend their entire lives as a potential danger to society. I don't think the measles, for example, will be eliminated.
In my opinion, promoting an anti-vaccination stance is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater, or should be viewed as such. It's a public health risk.
But I concede that's a pretty hard problem to deal with. I don't have any answers.
I personally know someone who is wrongfully convicted and serving a prison sentence. Maybe my mind is corrupted by movies but I've seen enough films where people are wrongly committed for political or revenge reasons that I would be hesitant to support that and give them the power to do it.
My point was that people who refuse vaccines and people with mental illness who refuse to comply with treatment potentially both pose a danger to others.
If someone is harmed, whether by preventable disease or violence as a result of another's refusal to accept the recommendations of medical professionals, the party that refused vaccination/treatment causes harm to another without being held liable. Either someone else pays to make the party who suffered whole, or the party who suffered loses.
I feel the state should intervene when people are unable to make the correct decision about medical treatment when there are negative externalities. It's unfair to those who comply.
I suppose it's cruel, but I find it hard to sympathize with people whose ignorant convictions are a disease vector.
If you don't believe in vaccines, don't have kids.
Interesting, I've never heard that being disease free is a right. Where do you believe rights come from?
Even hardcore government-distrusting libertarians acknowledge some version of the harm principle.
I'm also getting really tired of this "it's just ideas, guys!" as nationalism, flat earthism, anti-vaxx and more dangerous, anti-intellectual bullshit spreads across the country in this YouTube-era. I'm on the phone with my brother and he's telling me about a student teacher telling middle school students the earth is flat. I'm tired of acting like it's fine and this is unconcerning. Maybe the ever-reliable, ever-silent downvoters could express themselves and tell me why I'm wrong to be concerned.
I don't think hiding from these issues is the appropriate response.
Nor is pouring gasoline on the fire fueling these conspiracy theories.
It's not an opinion.
Unless you also think me saying the sky is green is also an opinion.
Avoid conflating opinions and facts, that is basically trump logic.
I frankly don't care if it's censorship. It's a hill I'll happily die on.
"The ends do not justify the means." Even for something as important as addressing climate change.
No one bothers calculating v^2/c^2 to estimate the kinetic energy of a Tesla.
Anti-Vaxx is basically like that.
As for phlogiston and luminiferous aether - yes, science is not omniscient. But those hypotheses are attributable to insufficiently precise instruments and knowledge.
More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful).
What else you got?
True statements? A scientist would acknowledge them as adequate approximations, not true statements.
And by the way, let's see you build GPS (relativity) or computers (QM by way of semiconductor physics) using Newtonian mechanics.
> More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful).
That's precisely the point. Science doesn't need self-appointed police squashing silly ideas like anti-vax precisely because science makes "positive statements about the world." Repeatable results speak for themselves.
[EDIT] To clarify further, allowing squashing of ideas because they don't agree with current scientific consensus will just make Planck's lament all the worse. ("A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.")
> What else you got?
After that last line, a slightly lower opinion of your ability to debate in a civil fashion.
I don't really care what your opinion is of my ability to debate in a civil fashion. That you are incorrect is not an opportunity for me to persuade you; your arguments are simply a vehicle for convincing the onlookers reading the back-and-forth. And to be blunt, when you're resorting to nitpicking words, ignoring points and comparing Newtonian mechanics to anti-vaccination, I also don't really care about abandoning civility.
And if I'm being honest I do get a certain satisfaction from challenging your examples in such a cavalier fashion, because they're frankly silly and incomparable. Considering the stakes (compromising herd immunity, implicitly defending harmful ignorance) I am all-in on censorship and abandoning decorum.
But you're free not to debate with me if you consider me gauche or impolite, just as Amazon is free to censor all the videos on its own platform.
You posted a link with red boxes around things, and I'm inferring I'm supposed to make a new conclusion or challenge my beliefs on the subject. But I don't have sufficient context to follow what you're getting at without you explaining what claim you're making that is supported by the insert.
Have you read the insert? The first highlighted point may seem odd out of context, but the context is right in front of the highlighted section. It's not saying the vaccine is ineffective, it's saying it is for immunisation in people who currently do not have the flu. The lack of studies mentioned is in relation to its effectiveness in people who take the vaccine whilst already being infected with the flu.
Highlighting the lack of proven effectiveness in children is odd too, since the very same insert states it is not for use in under 18s. It makes perfect sense it hasn't been tested on children.
The Mercury part doesn't even say anything negative, simply that it is an ingredient. There are many things that we know are poisonous in some contexts/quantities, whilst being harmless in others.
Im not sure if you're being disengenious on purpose, or if you simply lack the reading comprehension.
It's not the job of a fireman to make an arsonist see the error of his ways. We just want to put out the fire.
It's one thing to hold a belief in a certain threshold for freedom of speech. It's another thing to state without evidence that it has better outcomes.
It amazes me how many Americans religiously believe that their thresholds are the only ones that work and that the only other option is some ridiculous extreme. You can see the same religiosity in weapons freedoms. Somalians have more. North Koreans have less. Yet there are many working thresholds in between, most of which empirically perform better than the US's.
However, this one clearly states: there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza from using this product.
Note: Its curious I'm being downvoted for actually posted an actual insert, which has real scientific information. You would think all the "science lovers" would applaud that. Ho hum, I guess I should've posted a Merck marketing ad instead.
That being said, I'm glad you clarified because I figured the implication you were getting at is these are harmful vaccines. Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful?
Part of the second picture that the user has highlighted basically says that said vaccine contains a mercury derivative and that it has not been tested for "carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility". So I would say that this is also part of his issue.
"[..] measles, which we know to be about 98% effective"
"Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients"
That's a very unscientific assumption. Vaccines regularly lose efficacy, which is why 85% for the 'best' is reasonable.
Measles vaccines on the other hand are considered about 97% effective.
What do you thinks going to happen once they get the precedent set?
Give it another 5 years or so.
Its bracing how anti-science you sound.
I think it's easier to attain a critical mass of followers if these kinds of videos go unchallenged.