Then there is probably indeed something wrong with the vaccine. Some side effects or anything. I did take it but maybe you should not.
Especially since this is again tied to Russia in some way I cannot really can recapitulate, it is probably due to propaganda efforts. I think civil disobedience in this case is very healthy.
All anti-vaccine misinformation, right? I'm starting to worry how often these kinds of announcements include misinformation as only one of the things to be censored. The article is unclear whether the content has to be false or misleading, with phrases like:
"content that alleges vaccines cause chronic health effects or contains misinformation on the substances in vaccines"
Does that mean the European Medicines Agency would be blocked for listing Guillain-Barré syndrome as a possible (very rare) side-effect [1]?
What about statements like "Compulsory vaccination is wrong"?
A vaccine with currently no long-term studies being touted as having "no chronic health effects" surely qualifies as misinformation, no? Without 3, 5, 10 etc year studies, there's no way of knowing that there are no long term negative side effects. I highly doubt that legitimate misinformation that favors these vaccines and the pharma companies that produce them will be moderated at all, or at least anywhere near at the same rate as anti-vaccine (or even vaccine questioning) content.
Note this is not a claim that there are issues with the vaxes, just skepticism of sweeping claims about a relatively novel virus and novel vaccines, and the standards that are applied to moderation.
Will pro-choice (aka anti-mandate) content, such as the NBA players speaking their minds when asked by the press, considered anti-vaccine? Will be curious to see where that line falls.
How does YouTube separate content presented as fact vs content presented as opinion? False facts is one thing, but what if someone is just hesitant about vaccine safety?
They seem to be using Human moderators and only banning people/channels with a consistent track record and very clear violation of their admittedly arbitrary red line.
While the title says All anti-vaccine content, that actual article notes, it's blocking content that says "vaccines cause chronic health effects or contains misinformation on the substances in vaccines". A person who is hesitant about vaccine safety wouldn't be blocked then. Only if you say that cause x side effect (when that is not backed in science), or if you provide false info on whats in the vaccine, since the ingredients are facts. Someone saying their is a microchip in it, would not be a fact.
Awesome! Finally.
I think they should ban all anti-Facebook content as well.
Facebook is a good company and never makes mistakes, to think otherwise is simply dangerous for the whole tech industry and must be removed.
The challenge is to determine how misinformation is defined. Would peer reviewed scientific papers that come to different conclusions than the current CDC guidelines be considered anti-vaccine? Should we consider conflicts of interest or sources of funding when determining misinformation? Are open ended questions about the safety and efficacy allowed? What about other medications?
16 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 38.9 ms ] threadEspecially since this is again tied to Russia in some way I cannot really can recapitulate, it is probably due to propaganda efforts. I think civil disobedience in this case is very healthy.
"content that alleges vaccines cause chronic health effects or contains misinformation on the substances in vaccines"
Does that mean the European Medicines Agency would be blocked for listing Guillain-Barré syndrome as a possible (very rare) side-effect [1]?
What about statements like "Compulsory vaccination is wrong"?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford%E2%80%93AstraZeneca_COV...
Note this is not a claim that there are issues with the vaxes, just skepticism of sweeping claims about a relatively novel virus and novel vaccines, and the standards that are applied to moderation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693060