I'm concerned about HN signal boosting random Twitter threads. This is on the front page, but do we have any idea who this person is or whether they're a reliable source?
From my skimming of the Twitter account linked, it’s something related to hydrochloroquine. I can’t speak to the effectiveness or lack thereof of this compound for treatment of anything, but I have seen a lot of sites crack down on anything pro-HCQ, which may be justified if it is a vector for coordinated behavior otherwise forbidden by TOS.
What I am concerned about is the systemic effort to silence dissenting views. It is entirely possible that the dissenting views are incorrect. This civilization used to pride itself on informed debate, so here is a shout out to the dispossesed children of the Enlightenment: freedom of information and debate is central to our way of life. It must be preserved and it can not under any circumstances become subject to the dictates of the few.
Her profile informs me that she is a "doctor-lawyer-writer-mom", and runs a site called "The Gold Opinion" where facts lead and opinions follow. This doesn't really help me evaluate whether she's a reliable source.
These are not political opinions. Spreading discredited information during a pandemic is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Advocating the use of a medication shown by numerous studies not to work against CoVID-19 is not an unpopular opinion. It is factually incorrect and wantonly dangerous.
My point is - when something like HCQ’s effectiveness/safety is undecided, why aren’t people allowed to talk about it? Why aren’t doctors allowed to share their experiences with it? And when do things ever get fully decided to the point that they cannot be challenged at all? And why does censorship apply to some but not all sources?
We think the censorship of the HCQ treating covid is because the government needs to stockpile HCQ because it's good for treating radiation damage to DNA. Damage that could be caused by cell towers and other radio frequencies. We found a patent[1] for this. The truth of the matter is being hidden from us in a huge psyop.
The problem isn't just that "America's Front Line Doctors" were claiming HCQ was a cure. That could be forgiven... Depending on which studies you favor, and what your definition of a "cure" is. For example, can you really claim that a 5% improvement is a "cure"?
But these "doctors" were ALSO telling people they don't need to wear masks anymore, which is provably false. All you have to do is look at how infection rates drop every time masks are mandated to know this fact.
It's a big problem when a right wing group (Breitbart) stages a bunch of anti-science "doctors" and exploits their medical licenses to essentially mass murder people by spreading false hope and absolutely, provably false information like the advice not to wear masks.
Why is it important for you that we keep looking at HCQ? As more and more studies are released show its ineffectiveness, will you look for more and more obscure justifications? Why? Why not accept that HCQ is not an effective treatment? What is it about HCQ that gets you so fired up?
These are genuine, non-rhetorical questions. I presume you are a reasonably intelligent, rational person acting in good faith. I accept that you don’t see yourself as foolish or a nutball, and if I met you in person, we’d probably get along fine. So I am trying to bridge the digital divide and figure out what motivates you.
It’s not about HCQ for me, although I’m sure many are driven by the politicization if it. It’s more about freedom of speech/thought/inquiry. Shutting down all research or exploration or discussion seems like an argument to blindly trust in the status quo and in agencies that can be wrong and have been wrong. I remember seeing the same thing in earlier days of COVID, where Medium would block articles from amateurs performing their own analysis of the data and research. Many of those articles were proven over time to be more correct than what the prevailing consensus was back then.
It is important to allow speculative or early stage discussion to happen and I simply do not agree with large technology platforms exercising this degree of control over societal discourse, especially when things aren’t “settled” or fully understood.
Reliable source for what? You can easily verify yourself that www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com has been taken down. And the archive.org captures from the live site references the twitter account in OP.
In this case, they have the first say which is enforceable. A legal case, if brought and substantiated, could have a further decision, which may supersede any prior decision.
I think nothing should happen. The information does not violate any laws. Maybe it's utter bollocks, maybe it's not, but I'm tired of american tech companies trying to protect me from "harmful" opinions and information.
I guess I just see those “‘harmful’ opinions and information” as the tip of the iceberg. There’s a whole invisible economy around these sites and info. Follow the money.
Do they loss access to their domain name as well if their TOS is violated? From their website it seems like they offer first year domain registration for free, tied to their account. It seems to fragile if the domain name goes with the suspended account.
These platforms hold way too much power in deciding which speech is allowed and disallowed. There have been many times where trusted public agencies provided incorrect guidance on COVID - why should they enjoy a monopoly on speech and trust on these topics? We need dissenting voices and speculation to be heard, because they are part of the societal journey to ascertain the truth.
I’m also concerned that these actions are typically not motivated by a sacred duty to “public safety” but rather politics. Why should anyone trust squarespace if their employees’ politics can affect your business on a whim?
Hearing the opposing view, doesn't mean we should pay any attention to flat-earthers and conspiracy theorists. We are not going to reach the truth that way.
Why not? Flat earthers haven’t had much impact as far as public opinion. And HCQ isn’t a conspiracy theory unless you label all new data or speculation or difference of opinion as a conspiracy theory. We have to be careful when we use these labels. For example when the WHO said masks weren’t helpful, was that a conspiracy theory? Were the people nevertheless pushing masks also conspiracy theorists?
There are also many experts that support hearing the opposing view by the way. For example, Yale’s public health Dean just came out in support of the right to argue that HCQ could save lives (https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dean-of-public-health-de...). This statement was made because one of the public health professors at Yale believes HCQ could save lives, and the Dean felt it is important to defend academic freedom and free inquiry. We need that to challenge what might otherwise be incorrect prevailing sentiments on how best to treat COVID. It may be a dead end ultimately, but I am not for shutting down all discussion around it.
25 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 61.8 ms ] threadhttps://twitter.com/drsimonegold
What I am concerned about is the systemic effort to silence dissenting views. It is entirely possible that the dissenting views are incorrect. This civilization used to pride itself on informed debate, so here is a shout out to the dispossesed children of the Enlightenment: freedom of information and debate is central to our way of life. It must be preserved and it can not under any circumstances become subject to the dictates of the few.
Quote:
Thank you all so much for your support!
The new website is up! All of the videos are coming soon, but for now you can find the white paper on #HCQ and the compendium of #HCQ studies.
Please consider donating.
http://americasfrontlinedoctorsummit.com
end Quote.
Knowing Square will shutdown your website/business based off the political opinion of some Square employees is flooring.
It makes Square an unacceptable risk for any business.
My point is - when something like HCQ’s effectiveness/safety is undecided, why aren’t people allowed to talk about it? Why aren’t doctors allowed to share their experiences with it? And when do things ever get fully decided to the point that they cannot be challenged at all? And why does censorship apply to some but not all sources?
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en
But these "doctors" were ALSO telling people they don't need to wear masks anymore, which is provably false. All you have to do is look at how infection rates drop every time masks are mandated to know this fact.
It's a big problem when a right wing group (Breitbart) stages a bunch of anti-science "doctors" and exploits their medical licenses to essentially mass murder people by spreading false hope and absolutely, provably false information like the advice not to wear masks.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/facebook-youtube-coronav...
In my humble opinion, every single one of those "doctors" should be stripped of their license to practice medicine, and should face criminal charges.
These are genuine, non-rhetorical questions. I presume you are a reasonably intelligent, rational person acting in good faith. I accept that you don’t see yourself as foolish or a nutball, and if I met you in person, we’d probably get along fine. So I am trying to bridge the digital divide and figure out what motivates you.
It is important to allow speculative or early stage discussion to happen and I simply do not agree with large technology platforms exercising this degree of control over societal discourse, especially when things aren’t “settled” or fully understood.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200727231840/https://www.ameri...
For your sake, what do you think should happen?
I’m also concerned that these actions are typically not motivated by a sacred duty to “public safety” but rather politics. Why should anyone trust squarespace if their employees’ politics can affect your business on a whim?
The issue here is a company censoring speech. That is the actual issue.
There are also many experts that support hearing the opposing view by the way. For example, Yale’s public health Dean just came out in support of the right to argue that HCQ could save lives (https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dean-of-public-health-de...). This statement was made because one of the public health professors at Yale believes HCQ could save lives, and the Dean felt it is important to defend academic freedom and free inquiry. We need that to challenge what might otherwise be incorrect prevailing sentiments on how best to treat COVID. It may be a dead end ultimately, but I am not for shutting down all discussion around it.
moving on...