Of the oh so many things ordered from Amazon maybe half have a personal note from a seller asking for reviews, positive, of course.
I personally know at least one picker in a warehouse and the social scene is a shit show of weirdos with politics to match. Many books aren’t shrink wrapped so obviously this is possible. As is true for any book store or library across the entire world.
What’s the idea here? Shame on... what? Shame on... who? Am I supposed to be shocked at this headline?
Is it not possible for some of those affected by the recent measles outbreak, and others adversely impacted, to file a class action against the anti-vaxxers ?
Call me paranoid, but lately I've been thinking about getting the MMR as an adult who is in mid 40s - and I'm pissed. So, I can't even imagine what someone who is directly impacted might be feeling.
There are other circumstances in which you might not have had the vaccination, such as when undergoing chemotherapy. In those cases, herd immunity would provide protection for those who can't be get the vaccination themselves.
In chemotherapy you probably would have had the vaccination, but the vaccination works by training your own immune system against it, and chemo wipes your immune system out.
Children receive the MMR at 12 months of age, and the immunity they got from mom may lapse before then. There are also others who are unable to receive regular vaccinations for health reasons.
I don't think so, since people could have received the vaccine years ago, and even those who received vaccine recently are not 100% effective.
Also, the anti-vaxxer who is affected can argue they were misled or misinformed, or if they are children of anti-vaxxers, not anti-vaxxer themselves. Many possibilities..
> Aren't you only affected by the measles outbreak if you're an anti-vax in the first place... ?
No.
(1) There are people that cannot vaccinate for a variety of medical reasons; and
(2) Real vaccines are less than 100% effective (I think current measles vaccine is 93% after the first dose, 97% after both), but approximate 100% effectiveness when you have sufficient immunized population because you have a combination of direct immunity and herd immunity, the latter of which is just “you are less likely to get exposed because the people you come in contact with are largely immune.”
Or too young, or immunodeficient, or your vaccination expired (some of the older models only provide some decades of immunity, where a lifetime protection was expected) etc. Nope, this is not "mere" self-harm: innocent bystanders have already been killed this way.
What everybody else said, but including vaccinations are good but not perfect. If you give 1000 people the vaccine you're not going to see 1000 people now immune to the disease. You need "herd immunity" to help the people who've had the vaccine but who are not immune.
> Is it not possible for some of those affected by the recent measles outbreak, and others adversely impacted, to file a class action against the anti-vaxxers?
Against anti-vaxxers as a group? Doubtful. Against the patient zero who got you sick? Maybe. Against those distributing literature? Particularly if they're making money from the enterprise? Probably the best bet.
(Nitpick: anyone can sue anyone for anything. If it's really stupid, it will get thrown out. If it has legal merit, it should win. Asking "is it possible for X to sue Y" is therefore better framed as "would X be likely to win a case against Y".)
You can tell people to commit suicide if you have no malicious intent. For example if you think by dying you will go to a better place, then that's fine.
Antivaxxers genuinely believe that vacinations cause illness. That they are wrong doesn't make their speech illegal.
> Genuine question: Is telling people to commit suicide protected free speech?
Telling people in general that they should is protected; telling a particular person that they should may or may not be depending on other factors.
> AVers aren’t much different here.
They are quite a bit different. Yes, not vaccinated increase risk of infection, sickness, and death for both the person choosing that action and other people, but it is a much less proximate relationship to any death than suicide does. Advocating suicide is not itself generally illegal, and advocating courses of action that are not intended to cause death but do in fact increase its likelihood is even less likely to be illegal in general.
I'm pretty sure free speech doesn't exempt one from getting sued for damages: otherwise all the copywriters will have a field day with misleading commercials.
> I'm pretty sure free speech doesn't exempt one from getting sued for damages
It does; if speech is constitutionally protected, it cannot violate the law, and if an action does not violate a legal obligation, it is not a basis for damages.
This is why (for instance) it is much harder to bring a libel/slander case for damages in the US compared to Britain; US libel/slander laws (even in jurisdictions where no statutory provisions exists so the common law would otherwise control) are limited to avoid punishing protected speech.
> otherwise all the copywriters will have a field day with misleading commercials.
Commercial speech has for a long time been found to be less likely to be constitutionally protected than many other forms of speech.
It's possible to file a lawsuit on any pretext, but to win requires an argument that an actual law was broken, and there if no general legal duty to vaccinate; if you can trace a particular out real back to someone who, say, sought and received a fraudulently-given medical waiver of a public schol vaccination mandate that had only a medical exemption, and the transmission was in a context where the school mandate was relevant, you might have a case of harms stemming from an unlawful act where there might be a viable theory of recovery. But, generally, lawsuits depend on rather than substitute for appropriate laws.
a perfect opportunity to start a conversation with her coming-of-age son about critical thinking and how to make informed decisions. ignorant ideas and opinions are everywhere. the best defense is being capable of logical reasoning.
it's also important that we are exposed and open to ideas that challenge our beliefs. wisdom begins in doubt.
By that logic, no propaganda could ever have any negative impact. We should therefore put fliers with all sorts of maybe just random text, or even a sampling of the most vile hate speech we can find into every book sold. Then, we sit back and watch the world improve. Because a thousand monkeys with typewriters may not be Shakespeare, but they are a learning opportunity.
So ... probably just a weird order when the story is too young, let it age and drop.
[1] The exact formula is something like (poins-1)/(age+1)^1.6 or something like that. points/age^2 is a not very bad approximation, but it's much easier to calculate by hand. There are also flags and penalties applied automatically, by the mods and by the users. (The exact details are elsewhere.)
How is this news? You buy books on eBay and half the time they come with random crap like that in them. Usually it's religiously driven but I think that's just the difference between the eBay demographic and the Amazon/Whole Foods demographic.
Funny how everyone is in this threat is objecting to „this useless crap on the frontpage“, on an article describing parents upset about useless crap coming with their book.
My understanding is that Amazon commingles FBA inventory from different Amazon marketplace sellers with their own, so maybe this leaflet ultimately came from an Amazon Marketplace Seller, even if the book wasn't directly ordered from them.
34 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 77.9 ms ] threadOf the oh so many things ordered from Amazon maybe half have a personal note from a seller asking for reviews, positive, of course.
I personally know at least one picker in a warehouse and the social scene is a shit show of weirdos with politics to match. Many books aren’t shrink wrapped so obviously this is possible. As is true for any book store or library across the entire world.
What’s the idea here? Shame on... what? Shame on... who? Am I supposed to be shocked at this headline?
Is it not possible for some of those affected by the recent measles outbreak, and others adversely impacted, to file a class action against the anti-vaxxers ?
Call me paranoid, but lately I've been thinking about getting the MMR as an adult who is in mid 40s - and I'm pissed. So, I can't even imagine what someone who is directly impacted might be feeling.
Also, the anti-vaxxer who is affected can argue they were misled or misinformed, or if they are children of anti-vaxxers, not anti-vaxxer themselves. Many possibilities..
Disclaimer: IMNAL.
No.
(1) There are people that cannot vaccinate for a variety of medical reasons; and
(2) Real vaccines are less than 100% effective (I think current measles vaccine is 93% after the first dose, 97% after both), but approximate 100% effectiveness when you have sufficient immunized population because you have a combination of direct immunity and herd immunity, the latter of which is just “you are less likely to get exposed because the people you come in contact with are largely immune.”
Anti-vaxxers jeopardise everyone.
Against anti-vaxxers as a group? Doubtful. Against the patient zero who got you sick? Maybe. Against those distributing literature? Particularly if they're making money from the enterprise? Probably the best bet.
(Nitpick: anyone can sue anyone for anything. If it's really stupid, it will get thrown out. If it has legal merit, it should win. Asking "is it possible for X to sue Y" is therefore better framed as "would X be likely to win a case against Y".)
Rather than saying “kill yourself”, it’s more like saying “kill yourself - slowly, infectiously, and painfully.”
Antivaxxers genuinely believe that vacinations cause illness. That they are wrong doesn't make their speech illegal.
Telling people in general that they should is protected; telling a particular person that they should may or may not be depending on other factors.
> AVers aren’t much different here.
They are quite a bit different. Yes, not vaccinated increase risk of infection, sickness, and death for both the person choosing that action and other people, but it is a much less proximate relationship to any death than suicide does. Advocating suicide is not itself generally illegal, and advocating courses of action that are not intended to cause death but do in fact increase its likelihood is even less likely to be illegal in general.
It does; if speech is constitutionally protected, it cannot violate the law, and if an action does not violate a legal obligation, it is not a basis for damages.
This is why (for instance) it is much harder to bring a libel/slander case for damages in the US compared to Britain; US libel/slander laws (even in jurisdictions where no statutory provisions exists so the common law would otherwise control) are limited to avoid punishing protected speech.
> otherwise all the copywriters will have a field day with misleading commercials.
Commercial speech has for a long time been found to be less likely to be constitutionally protected than many other forms of speech.
it's also important that we are exposed and open to ideas that challenge our beliefs. wisdom begins in doubt.
This post has less than an hour, so the priority is 11/1^2=11
The third post is currently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19778023 that has 98 points in 3 hour, so the priority is 98/3^3=10.9
So ... probably just a weird order when the story is too young, let it age and drop.
[1] The exact formula is something like (poins-1)/(age+1)^1.6 or something like that. points/age^2 is a not very bad approximation, but it's much easier to calculate by hand. There are also flags and penalties applied automatically, by the mods and by the users. (The exact details are elsewhere.)