Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cheshire90 t1_izr9yyy wrote

Reply to comment by WorldlinessAwkward69 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

The fact that no authority controls discourse has always been part of the tradeoff of an open society. It is significantly more immoral to silence someone genuinely giving their experience than it is to allow some hucksters to speak.

You should also consider that whatever power you give to censor people is going to end up also being wielded by whatever group you currently hate most.

−7

WorldlinessAwkward69 t1_izs9uoj wrote

No one is silencing anyone. Science papers go though more rigor than some anonymous post on twitter. You are discounting expertise. With that logic of open source discourse the next time you need surgery just take a random account’s opinion off twitter to treat you.

6

Cheshire90 t1_iztjzqr wrote

Um are you worried that if people on twitter are allowed to say wrong things your surgeon will use that when treating you?

−1

WorldlinessAwkward69 t1_iztl6w2 wrote

No, I'm just saying because some idiot said it on twitter doesn't make it true/verifiable, and this guy knows it because he wouldn't ask some random twitter/reddit/social media moron to perform brain surgery on him.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztxxup wrote

So? You seem to have this set up as a dichotomy where either we have complete trust in twitter people or it's so threatening that they be allowed to say what they want that we need to take action against them. Neither of those things are true.

0