social media Giants being pressured to curb medical misinformation

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, mr moose said:

No ones banning a person for their views, they are simply requesting the deletion of dangerous and absolutely wrong vaccine advice.   

That is Censorship. 

Its not less bad.

 

 

Just now, mr moose said:

That's actually legally and morally closer to banning people from inciting a riot than it is to anything else.   Laws already exist to that effect.

No, its not.

That's analogie is not close to reality.

You might think it but you're wrong.

 

 

And why did you ignore the Murder of Upcoming people???

And the glorification of those views?

 

Shouldn't we remove those views as well? Because there an upcoming person is actually killed and not potentially like with vaccination.

[mr moose]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

That is Censorship. 

Its not less bad.

 

 

No, its not.

That's analogie is not close to reality.

You might think it but you're wrong.

Inciting people to riot endangers their lives, pretending to be a doctor and telling people not to vaccinate endangers their lives,  It is exactly the same thing.

 

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

 

And why did you ignore the Murder of Upcoming people???

And the glorification of those views?

 

Shouldn't we remove those views as well? Because there an upcoming person is actually killed and not potentially like with vaccination.

You know none of that actually makes any sense in the context of whats happening right?  

 

For the most important reason that it is not a "potential" fanger but a realised one, many people in first world countries die of preventable disease because they weren't vaccinated. The parents always say the same damn thing, I didn't know because  the naturapath told us they were dangerous!

 

Quote

Emmanuel Bilodeau, whose family is at the centre of a measles outbreak in Canada, has revealed he didn’t vaccinate his children because of fears about autism.

https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/philippines-says-136-people-have-died-in-measles-outbreak/news-story/19966c9474a422049d121d7ec7afdb1b

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/toddler-dies-of-measles-in-jerusalem-in-first-such-incident-in-15-years/

 

 

And what they are fighting to have removed:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2015/07/10/this-is-what-happens-when-you-trust-a-naturopath-to-treat-a-real-disease/

 

It is not censorship, it is removing the utterly stupid and dangerous practices of charlatans from social media.  The fact you can;t see the difference is scary.

 

 

[mr moose]

this is also some light reading, you can fact check any of it if anyone is desperate to disprove the dangers of promoting anti vaccine nonsense.

 

http://whatstheharm.net/vaccinedenial.html

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It is not censorship, it is removing the utterly stupid and dangerous practices of charlatans from social media.  The fact you can;t see the difference is scary. 

It is censorship though.

Censorship is defined as "suppression or prohibition of any part of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable or a threat to security".

 

 

And I don't think (at least hope that) nobody here is debating that anti-vaxxers are a problem. The thing being debated here is, should social media ban certain subjects from being discussed and who gets to decide what is and isn't allowed to be talked about. Google and Facebook holds an incredible amount of power, and once they start swinging that around it might have tremendous consequences that might not always align with what you think or believe.

[Stefan Payne]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You know none of that actually makes any sense in the context of whats happening right?  

Killing (upcoming) people with the intent of killing it is not worse than not vaccinating it???

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

For the most important reason that it is not a "potential" fanger but a realised one, many people in first world countries die of preventable disease because they weren't vaccinated. The parents always say the same damn thing, I didn't know because  the naturapath told us they were dangerous!

Yes and you beat that with the right knowledge, with persons that debate those people, that PROVE that they are wrong and talk to them.

That might be more painful than to put the dirt under the carpet like you promote but it is the only solution in a free and open society.

 

If you don't like it, why don't you go to China??

There you are FORCED to be vaccinated.

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And what they are fighting to have removed:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2015/07/10/this-is-what-happens-when-you-trust-a-naturopath-to-treat-a-real-disease/

Again, you beat that with facts, and knowledge, not censorship.

If you want to do something about those people, you do something about those. For example force them to have a sign that tells them that they are NOT doctors in medicine.

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It is not censorship, it is removing the utterly stupid and dangerous practices of charlatans from social media.  The fact you can;t see the difference is scary.

It is Censorship.

Don't beat around the bushes. You want to censor the speech of people you don't deem trustworthy to talk.

That's the wrong way to go about it!

 

The right way is to prove that they are charlatans and, in certain cases, might be impersonating a medical doctor. And do something about THAT.

[mr moose]

Just now, LAwLz said:

It is censorship though.

Censorship is defined as "suppression or prohibition of any part of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable or a threat to security".

 

 

And I don't think (at least hope that) nobody here is debating that anti-vaxxers are a problem. The thing being debated here is, should social media ban certain subjects from being discussed and who gets to decide what is and isn't allowed to be talked about. Google and Facebook holds an incredible amount of power, and once they start swinging that around it might have tremendous consequences that might not always align with what you think or believe.

Again, there is a difference between banning people and discussion and banning outright claims of dishonesty,  if you can ban people from inciting a riot and charge people with fraud then you can also define when a post crossed the line into dangerous misinformation.

 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Killing (upcoming) people with the intent of killing it is not worse than not vaccinating it???

 

Yes and you beat that with the right knowledge, with persons that debate those people, that PROVE that they are wrong and talk to them.

That might be more painful than to put the dirt under the carpet like you promote but it is the only solution in a free and open society.

 

If you don't like it, why don't you go to China??

There you are FORCED to be vaccinated.

 

Again, you beat that with facts, and knowledge, not censorship.

If you want to do something about those people, you do something about those. For example force them to have a sign that tells them that they are NOT doctors in medicine.

 

You can't convince people they are wrong with evidence and proof when those people refuse to accept the evidence and proof.  This is the problem, we have moved passed the point of rational debate, people are too stupid/willfully ignorant, the only solution is to try and limit the exposure of everyday people to the fraudsters.

Quote

It is Censorship.

Don't beat around the bushes. You want to censor the speech of people you don't deem trustworthy to talk.

That's the wrong way to go about it!

 

The right way is to prove that they are charlatans and, in certain cases, might be impersonating a medical doctor. And do something about THAT.

No I don't, I want to delete unequivocally dangerous misinformation.  We've already proven they are charlatans, that isn't enough. 

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

And I don't think (at least hope that) nobody here is debating that anti-vaxxers are a problem.

No, of course I don't.

We lost a dog because she wasn't vaccinated. I know about that. 

 

But those anti-vaccers have a right to speak and articulate their doubt about something.

In the Medical Industry there are some very bad things going on, that led to the rise of those anti-vaccers.
Especially in relation to opioids.

 

So in short: The real Problem is corruption in the medical indurstry that leads to people loose trust in their doctors and turn elsewhere.

THAT is the Problem we should talk about and solve.

When that is solved and the Trust in the Medical Doctors rises again, then the anti-vaxxers will die as well.

 

And also many doctors are just bad. I know, I have some personal experience with that...

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

The thing being debated here is, should social media ban certain subjects from being discussed and who gets to decide what is and isn't allowed to be talked about. Google and Facebook holds an incredible amount of power, and once they start swinging that around it might have tremendous consequences that might not always align with what you think or believe.

The answer is: NO!

Of course NOT!
As they are a Plattform, that should be treated like a Forum and should allow everyone to voice their oppionion.

 

And to do that, people need to be involved in discussions...

But that doesn't seem to happen, be it because of fear of getting banned or whatever...

[Suika]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

...

It hurts me to see those lines written here. And to think that people actually believe that.

I mean when Twitter releases 418 accounts less than a month ago, almost all Russian in origin but tweeting as politically charged Americans, I'd say it's still a prevalent issue.

 

I saw some analyst cite Russian trolls/bots as a source (one of, not the only) for Facebook's issue with the misinformation surrounding anti-vaccination, but they hadn't posted any specific resources to back the comment so I can't verify with it, I only recognize that it was discussed.

[mr moose]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

But those anti-vaccers have a right to speak and articulate their doubt about something.

 

They have a right to speak, they do not have the right to deliberately misinform people in a dangerous way that leads to deaths.  That is the difference, if they wish to say "I don't personally believe": that is one thing, but when they pretend to be doctors and tell new mum's not to vaccinate because their kids will become autistic or die from even worse heavy metals that are "in" the vaccines,  then that is a completely different thing.  

This is not censorship, this is shutting down fraudulent advertising/propaganda.

[Stefan Payne]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again, there is a difference between banning people and discussion and banning outright claims of dishonesty

Nope, not really. In both cases you don't allow people to talk about that.

Though you should try to be honest and not fall into the "believe because I already believe it" trap, nobody should bansomeone for presenting their views - even if they are totally bogus.

 

An example:
Would you ban Communists from your Plattform?
Would you ban Nazis from your Plattform?

Why?

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

if you can ban people from inciting a riot and charge people with fraud then you can also define when a post crossed the line into dangerous misinformation.

That are two different things.

 

And one thing you are totally missing:
Intent.

And with that we're at the "Nazi Pug" Thing... 

You know, the one who wanted to make his Girlfriends Pug less cute to his Girlfriend...

 

So Inciting a riot is done with the Intent to harm people in many cases. In other cases its the willingness to harm other people.

Here, we are talking about shit people actually believe in - like the "Russian Conspiracy" Nonsense.

THAT is a big difference!

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again, there is a difference between banning people and discussion and banning outright claims of dishonesty,  if you can ban people from inciting a riot and charge people with fraud then you can also define when a post crossed the line into dangerous misinformation. 

The article does not state that it will just ban "claims of dishonesty" though, and if I had to guess discussion of it will probably be censored quote heavily too. Especially since the article states that repeated claims can be harmful and shouldn't be allowed (which could potentially be ordinary people giving anecdotes).

 

Also, this is a far bigger undertaking than meets the eye. Software doesn't work by simply writing "if (fake info) { delete; }". The process of determining what is and isn't accurate, what context the statement is being said in, and so on, is incredibly difficult ad something no company has been able to get even anywhere near to accurate (just look at Youtube).

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

Nope, not really. In both cases you don't allow people to talk about that.

Though you should try to be honest and not fall into the "believe because I already believe it" trap, nobody should bansomeone for presenting their views - even if they are totally bogus.

 

They are very different.   Would you batter an eyelid if an NVIDIA ad claim buying AMD gave you herpies was removed?  OF course not, you know it's wrong and they shouldn't have made the claim.  Exactly the same here, vaccines don't cause autism so any claim they do can be removed on thee same grounds, it is a lie that causes harm.

 

If you really want to maintain your position that this is a free speech issue then you should have not problemss with such an ad from NVIDIA.

 

 

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

An example:
Would you ban Communists from your Plattform?
Would you ban Nazis from your Plattform?

Why?

That doesn't actually address anything

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

That are two different things.

 

And one thing you are totally missing:
Intent.

 

Um, really?  Intent is A. moot when the information is dangerous and absolutely wrong and B. if it is intentional then they should be shut down and charged.

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

And with that we're at the "Nazi Pug" Thing... 

You know, the one who wanted to make his Girlfriends Pug less cute to his Girlfriend...

 

Different issue altogether, we are not talking about perceived feelings or oppression, we are talking only about what is an absolute proven fact.

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

So Inciting a riot is done with the Intent to harm people in many cases. In other cases its the willingness to harm other people.

Here, we are talking about shit people actually believe in - like the "Russian Conspiracy" Nonsense.

 

People who promote anti vaccine nonsense either do it because they are stupid and dangerous or because are intent on hurting people. Take your pick, either way the justification for removing said post still stands.

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

THAT is a big difference!

in your mind, fortunately for us you don't understand the difference between fraud and personal opinion.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The article does not state that it will just ban "claims of dishonesty" though, and if I had to guess discussion of it will probably be censored quote heavily too. Especially since the article states that repeated claims can be harmful and shouldn't be allowed (which could potentially be ordinary people giving anecdotes).

 

Also, this is a far bigger undertaking than meets the eye. Software doesn't work by simply writing "if (fake info) { delete; }". The process of determining what is and isn't accurate, what context the statement is being said in, and so on, is incredibly difficult ad something no company has been able to get even anywhere near to accurate (just look at Youtube).

 

It's pretty simply, if the post says vaccines are dangerous or to avoid them without consulting a doctor it is inaccurate.  Grey areas can stay.

[Stefan Payne]

2 minutes ago, Suika said:

I mean when Twitter releases 418 accounts less than a month ago, almost all Russian in origin but tweeting as politically charged Americans, I'd say it's still a prevalent issue.

It is a lie because some person was a bad sportsman and didn't want to admit that that person lost, so they put some bullshit conspiracy theory out of their hat. And since that person was in their 70s, that person grew up with the "Russian Enemy" Narrative. Because it couldn't be that that person lost because nobody liked that person.

 

And the "Russian shit" was an easy sell because many people are used to that shit as well. Because many people alive are also used to the "Russian bad" Narrative. 

 

Also those Accounts weren't necessarily Russian. Tim Pool (a self described Lefty) talked about that as well somewhere on his second channel.

2 minutes ago, Suika said:

I saw some analyst cite Russian trolls/bots as a source (one of, not the only) for Facebook's issue with the misinformation surrounding anti-vaccination, but they hadn't posted any specific resources to back the comment so I can't verify with it, I only recognize that it was discussed.

yes and why are there no specific resources???

Because its absolute and utter horse shit. The Russian part. not the BOT/Troll Part.

 

I believe that they are bots and "automated accounts", but I don't buy that Russian part for one second especially with the lack of evidence of that stuff.

 

And, as said earlier, its a lie that's an easy sell because most of the people responsible lived in the "Russian fright" time, when it was still the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union is gone.

The Russia isn't an enemy no more!

Russia is a competitor to the Power on the World Stage - same as the EU, US of A, China.

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They have a right to speak, they do not have the right to deliberately misinform people in a dangerous way that leads to deaths. 

How do you know its deliberate??
Its not deliberate if you believe it, is it?
And that's what you miss.

You can't look into the heads of people and know their Intent...

 

You can only assume. But why assume that people have bad intentions?
Why not assume that people are just not very well informed and mistaken?

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This is not censorship,

Yet it is...

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

this is shutting down fraudulent advertising/propaganda.

Then shut it down!
You go to the Source and look there.

But what you are propagating is shooting the Messenger...

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

It is a lie because some person was a bad sportsman and didn't want to admit that that person lost, so they put some bullshit conspiracy theory out of their hat. And since that person was in their 70s, that person grew up with the "Russian Enemy" Narrative. Because it couldn't be that that person lost because nobody liked that person.

 

And the "Russian shit" was an easy sell because many people are used to that shit as well. Because many people alive are also used to the "Russian bad" Narrative. 

 

Also those Accounts weren't necessarily Russian. Tim Pool (a self described Lefty) talked about that as well somewhere on his second channel.

yes and why are there no specific resources???

Because its absolute and utter horse shit. The Russian part. not the BOT/Troll Part.

 

I believe that they are bots and "automated accounts", but I don't buy that Russian part for one second especially with the lack of evidence of that stuff.

 

And, as said earlier, its a lie that's an easy sell because most of the people responsible lived in the "Russian fright" time, when it was still the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union is gone.

The Russia isn't an enemy no more!

Russia is a competitor to the Power on the World Stage - same as the EU, US of A, China.

 

How do you know its deliberate??
Its not deliberate if you believe it, is it?
And that's what you miss.

You can't look into the heads of people and know their Intent...

 

You can only assume. But why assume that people have bad intentions?
Why not assume that people are just not very well informed and mistaken?

 

Yet it is...

Then shut it down!
You go to the Source and look there.

But what you are propagating is shooting the Messenger...

What you are promoting is that all fraud should be allowed because we can't know if they "believe" it or not. 

 

There is no harm in deleting a post that is known to be dangerous, there is much harm in leaving it there.  I don't care a fuck about intent personally.  And neither does the law when it comes to negligence and fraud.

 

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/naturopath-faces-sentencing-in-starving-baby-case/news-story/bc594346e08341bfee402f19471b830d

 

Fucked up misinformation and fraud has an end result in death,  I like to see it stopped and if that concept upsets you then I will gladly live in a safer world that you are upset in.

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, Suika said:

I mean when Twitter releases 418 accounts less than a month ago, almost all Russian in origin but tweeting as politically charged Americans, I'd say it's still a prevalent issue.

 

I saw some analyst cite Russian trolls/bots as a source (one of, not the only) for Facebook's issue with the misinformation surrounding anti-vaccination, but they hadn't posted any specific resources to back the comment so I can't verify with it, I only recognize that it was discussed.

Just a fair warning, it has been found out that a lot of "Russian" bots and accounts are in fact not from Russia. For example the CIA has a framework called Marble, which makes cyber-attacks done by the US appear as if they were done by Russia, China, Korea or Arabic countries.

 

Not to mention that countries like the US and UK also have state sponsored propaganda campaigns using sock puppet accounts. For example "Operation Earnest Voice", "Online Covert Action" and other missions headed by the "Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group".

 

Russia has become kind of a boogieman that you can blame a lot of things on and people won't question it.

[Arika]

10 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Then shut it down!
You go to the Source and look there.

And how do you supposed you do that? the source are a bunch of people that will not change their mind until there is an outbreak of a disease long thought eradicated that threatens the lives of potentially an entire county? state? country?

 

these are the same people that think that pouring bleach into a baby's anus will cure their autism, do you really think they are going to listen to any of of rational thought, proven facts or basic science?

[mr moose]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Just a fair warning, it has been found out that a lot of "Russian" bots and accounts are in fact not from Russia. For example the CIA has a framework called Marble, which makes cyber-attacks done by the US appear as if they were done by Russia, China, Korea or Arabic countries.

 

Not to mention that countries like the US and UK also have state sponsored propaganda campaigns using sock puppet accounts. For example "Operation Earnest Voice", "Online Covert Action" and other missions headed by the "Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group".

 

Russia has become kind of a boogieman that you can blame a lot of things on and people won't question it.

Just another reason the internet is a bad bad thing we aren't ready for as a race.

[LAwLz]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's pretty simply, if the post says vaccines are dangerous or to avoid them without consulting a doctor it is inaccurate.  Grey areas can stay.

You say gray areas can stay, but that is just your opinion and not something Facebook or Google have said they will do.

I don't think they will allow gray areas because programming such a system is incredibly difficult.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

And how do you supposed you do that? the source are a bunch of people that will not change their mind until there is an outbreak of a disease long thought eradicated that threatens the lives of potentially an entire county? state? country?

 

these are the same people that think that pouring bleach into a babies anus will cure their autism, do you really think they are going to listen to any of of rational thought, proven facts or basic science?

Exactly, no amount of evidence will stop them spouting their vile advice (they are either too stupid or make too much money from it).  I have a friend who nearly lost a liver due the amount of supplements those fuckers were advising.  It's highly dangerous and something needs to be done. the time for rational debate with them has long passed.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

You say gray areas can stay, but that is just your opinion and not something Facebook or Google have said they will do.

I don't think they will allow gray areas because programming such a system is incredibly difficult.

We'll have to wait for an official response from them to know what they are going to do (or not do).

 

 

[Blademaster91]

25 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

yes and why are there no specific resources???

Because its absolute and utter horse shit. The Russian part. not the BOT/Troll Part.

I believe that they are bots and "automated accounts", but I don't buy that Russian part for one second especially with the lack of evidence of that stuff.

And, as said earlier, its a lie that's an easy sell because most of the people responsible lived in the "Russian fright" time, when it was still the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union is gone.

The Russia isn't an enemy no more!

Russia is a competitor to the Power on the World Stage - same as the EU, US of A, China.

The blame it on Russia scare tactic is clearly fake, yet you don't see Facebook or Google going after the media sources that are pushing the spin and lies. This is definitely censorship though, allowing large companies to police what is allowed based on opinion just allows them to have a bias with other things especially politics with how much profit is involved.

25 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

How do you know its deliberate??
Its not deliberate if you believe it, is it?
And that's what you miss.

You can't look into the heads of people and know their Intent...

 

You can only assume. But why assume that people have bad intentions?
Why not assume that people are just not very well informed and mistaken?

The intent could be important, but if people are stupid enough to take medical advice from someone that isn't a professional, and taking everything on Facebook seriously without any doubt then its their own fault.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

 

 but if people are stupid enough to take medical advice from someone that isn't a professional,

You'd be surprised how easy it is to convince a new mother of anything, it is incredibly easy to scare a new mother into anything.  In fact fear is one of the biggest tools used by fraudsters and con artists.

[Stefan Payne]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

And how do you supposed you do that?

I don't know.

But I know what is a very bad idea: Censoring those people.

Because that kinda proves them right (or at least that's what they will believe)

 

What we could do is for example, make a volontary Vaccination Programm in schools (free of charge).

And if the Parents don't want to vaccinate their children, they are welcomed to a round of discussion/debate about that.

 

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

the source are a bunch of people that will not change their mind until there is an outbreak of a disease long thought eradicated that threatens the lives of potentially an entire county? state? country?

That is the price we have to pay if we want to be free...

There will always be some idiots that do some stupid shit. Nothing can do about that...

The only thing you can do is try to educate people. If they don't want to be educated, that's a problem but not much you can do at that point.

I mean the alternative would be to take away the kid and forcibly vaccinate the kid against the wishes of the parents.

That might work.

But then again, that would be the authoritarian approach. Not the "Free Approach".

 

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

these are the same people that think that pouring bleach into a babies anus will cure their autism, do you really think they are going to listen to any of of rational thought, proven facts or basic science?

Obviously not.

And its really sad that people don't respond to arguments and facts and just ignore them (but that is like 90% of the Problems we have right now in society)...

I have to admit that it is not a good solution, but we can't save everyone...

And the real important thing is that its a question about freedom vs. authoritarianism.

 

In a free society, you have to be free to do some really dumb shit as well