Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cheshire90 t1_izr9gis wrote

Reply to comment by MariachiBoyBand in An analysis of 4511 vaccine-related tweets show that anti-vaccine messaging tends to focus on the "harmful" nature of vaccines, based on personal values and beliefs rather than hard facts. Anonymity did not affect the type of content posted, but did affect volume of content. by glawgii

I stated up front that I am not really skeptical of the COVID vaccines. I'm not the one who's afraid that good evidence won't beat bad evidence.

Considering that I basically agree with the pro-vaccine position I'm really curious, what's the bad faith motive that you're accusing me of for saying "just don't censor people"?

I will say that if someone has a bad reaction to any medical treatment it is flatly immoral to tell them they can't share their experience or to try to silence them. It's completely crazy to me that responsible people would think that's what they should do to control "misinformation".

−4

MariachiBoyBand t1_izraydg wrote

Again, you’re using emotional pleas to “get your message”, the people that get a reaction, should speak out but also, the percentage of people that get a reaction should be part of the conversation. Generally when I read a message of a bad reaction to vaccines, it’s accompanied by absurd messaging of “what else are they hiding” paired with mistrust with no actual source nor due diligence as to the percentage of people affected, this is the crux of the bad faith arguments, fear and exaggeration of vaccines is part it.

7

Cheshire90 t1_izrciqp wrote

What emotional plea? I'm advocating against the emotion-based argument that we have to suppress people because maybe rationality might not win out.

People who are reporting their own experience aren't responsible for putting that in context of the rest of the population. They are literally just saying what happened to them.

The rest of us should take their report in context of the balance of evidence, not try to dismiss it because we need all evidence to point 100% in one direction. There will always be evidence for and against any position.

It's not really that threatening for people to be allowed to say wrong or exaggerated things; it going to happen all the time no matter what you do. Sorry to break that news. A lot of it will by by people who are on "your side" of any given issue.

2

Anubisrapture t1_izt2umm wrote

Not in this situation. One side is actually vetted, scientific and the other side is linked to things like Q anon and the hysteria of the far right- which leads to or includes violence and other cult like situations. Both siding this is not a good thing.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztj19u wrote

Which right wing politicians do you think should be in charge of deciding who gets to speak when they have the majority? Whatever standard you advocate for is going to be applied by the exact people you're afraid of.

Free speech is not about equivalency between sides. The idea that you can vet out who is right and silence anyone who doesn't meet your standard is both a fantasy and will surely backfire on you.

1

Anubisrapture t1_izt2ia4 wrote

Well for an example of what allowing any old speech will do- look at how Twitter is currently tanking from misinformation, constant ridiculous / bUt hUnTeR'S lApToP threads from Elon himself , and the opening of ALL speech which lead to the constant far right dangerous hate speech on it now.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztjg8q wrote

Great example. Now that someone you don't agree with is in control of the company, do you still want them to use your standard of censoring any speech that he thinks is bad?

1