Censorship 'Can't Be The Only Answer' To Anti-Vax Misinformation, Argues EFF (eff.org) 313
Despite the spread of anti-vaccine misinformation, "censorship cannot be the only answer," argues the EFF, adding that "removing entire categories of speech from a platform does little to solve the underlying problems."
"Tech companies and online platforms have other ways to address the rapid spread of disinformation, including addressing the algorithmic 'megaphone' at the heart of the problem and giving users control over their own feeds... " Anti-vax information is able to thrive online in part because it exists in a data void in which available information about vaccines online is "limited, non-existent, or deeply problematic." Because the merit of vaccines has long been considered a decided issue, there is little recent scientific literature or educational material to take on the current mountains of disinformation. Thus, someone searching for recent literature on vaccines will likely find more anti-vax content than empirical medical research supporting vaccines. Censoring anti-vax disinformation won't address this problem.
Even attempts at the impossible task of wiping anti-vax disinformation from the Internet entirely will put it beyond the reach of researchers, public health professionals, and others who need to be able to study it and understand how it spreads. In a worst-case scenario, well-intentioned bans on anti-vax content could actually make this problem worse. Facebook, for example, has over-adjusted in the past to the detriment of legitimate educational health content...
Platforms must address one of the root causes behind disinformation's spread online: the algorithms that decide what content users see and when. And they should start by empowering users with more individualized tools that let them understand and control the information they see.... Users shouldn't be held hostage to a platform's proprietary algorithm. Instead of serving everyone "one algorithm to rule them all" and giving users just a few opportunities to tweak it, platforms should open up their APIs to allow users to create their own filtering rules for their own algorithms. News outlets, educational institutions, community groups, and individuals should all be able to create their own feeds, allowing users to choose who they trust to curate their information and share their preferences with their communities.
"Tech companies and online platforms have other ways to address the rapid spread of disinformation, including addressing the algorithmic 'megaphone' at the heart of the problem and giving users control over their own feeds... " Anti-vax information is able to thrive online in part because it exists in a data void in which available information about vaccines online is "limited, non-existent, or deeply problematic." Because the merit of vaccines has long been considered a decided issue, there is little recent scientific literature or educational material to take on the current mountains of disinformation. Thus, someone searching for recent literature on vaccines will likely find more anti-vax content than empirical medical research supporting vaccines. Censoring anti-vax disinformation won't address this problem.
Even attempts at the impossible task of wiping anti-vax disinformation from the Internet entirely will put it beyond the reach of researchers, public health professionals, and others who need to be able to study it and understand how it spreads. In a worst-case scenario, well-intentioned bans on anti-vax content could actually make this problem worse. Facebook, for example, has over-adjusted in the past to the detriment of legitimate educational health content...
Platforms must address one of the root causes behind disinformation's spread online: the algorithms that decide what content users see and when. And they should start by empowering users with more individualized tools that let them understand and control the information they see.... Users shouldn't be held hostage to a platform's proprietary algorithm. Instead of serving everyone "one algorithm to rule them all" and giving users just a few opportunities to tweak it, platforms should open up their APIs to allow users to create their own filtering rules for their own algorithms. News outlets, educational institutions, community groups, and individuals should all be able to create their own feeds, allowing users to choose who they trust to curate their information and share their preferences with their communities.
It's always the answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Along with marginalizing people, calling them names and associating them with your enemies if they do not believe 100% of everything you believe in. It's also okay to call them inhuman and seek to remove their rights because people you do not like do not deserve rights. If they wanted any rights they should have believed, voted, acted, and thought the exact same way that you do.
People need to start figuring out that the tools governments, businesses, and others use to oppress you are derived from the tools you voted to give them to silence your enemies... do don't get shocked when they turn them on you! It's not if, it's just a matter of when.
The goal of government is to obtain as much power as it can. And the only backs or necks to stand on for that are the citizens.
Re:It's always the answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Along with marginalizing people, calling them names and associating them with your enemies if they do not believe 100% of everything you believe in. It's also okay to call them inhuman and seek to remove their rights because people you do not like do not deserve rights.
We've done that, with african-americans (can't let them vote!), homosexuals (can't let them marry!), trans-folks (can't let them use my bathroom!), muslims (gotta ban them!), hispanics (papers please!), and so many more. (Did you support any of those efforts, when you weren't the one being targeted?) But the odd thing is that none of those people were actually dangerous.
Unvaccinated people, on the other hand, are dangerous to us all. I'm old enough that I've probably lost my measles immunity. I'm getting another shot soon, but I only need to because a bunch of gullible people believed obviously-false information about vaccines, so measles is no longer wiped out in my area.
So you don't need to believe in 100% of what I believe in. But if you're going to endanger everyone, then we're gonna try to make you no-longer-dangerous. We'll remove the minimal rights so that you are no longer a danger. Or you can choose to make yourself not a danger by getting a vaccination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe no danger to me but what about my neighbor with a compromised immune system and that cute little 4 month old (as well as his ugly twin) who is too young to be vaccinated? I may be self centered but I hope I'm not that self centered.
Re:It's always the answer... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that zombies don't deserve rights, I'm just saying that the right to refuse treatment shouldn't be one of those rights. In this case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Children have a right to basic healthcare. It's a human right.
Children also have a right to not be needlessly, recklessly endangered. They have a right to a seatbelt in a car, and a right to proper care by their parents.
Not vaccinating them is reckless and needless endangers them and other people. You can argue that skydiving for babies is fine, come up with your own pseudo-scientific arguments to justify it, but it just isn't. And the rest of us aren't going to let you push your baby out of an aircraft for
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I am 100% pro vaccinations.
But who the hell does some asshole geek think he is attempting to censor what people say and do online.
Censorship is NOT a solution.
Don't believe that then don't you dare go and tell me that those folks who want to keep birth control information from being taught at schools are wrong.
You don't get to play on both sides of the fence. Your "opinion" is no better than anyone else's regardless of what you perceive your edumication to be.
Either you are for censorship or you are not.
Oh, by the way, twerking an algorithm to downplay one opinion or another, that's censorship.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't believe that then don't you dare go and tell me that those folks who want to keep birth control information from being taught at schools are wrong.
This is a terrible analogy. You're comparing the restriction on education in schools to a restriction on bullshit on a private server.
You do, inadvertently, approach the real crux of the issue: our educational system doesn't prepare students to distinguish between bullshit and non-bullshit. Anti-vax conspiracies only work because there are enough dumb people to fall for it. The EFF and you both take a very idealistic approach—in an ideal world the marketplace of ideas allows the cream to rise to the top. But the whole marketplace of idea concept is premised on the idea that the citizenry is composed of individuals who can distinguish between a strong argument and a weak one. The internet is turning into a megaphone of stupid and we're on the path to electing Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho in the near future.
I think that entities on the internet shouldn't—in a more ideal world—have to censor idiots like anti-vaxxers because doing so attacks the symptoms rather than the problem. But the problem—the fact that, as a country, we refuse to nationally prioritize education—doesn't appear to being solved anytime soon.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
The internet is turning into a megaphone of stupid and we're on the path to electing Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho in the near future.
Are you sure we haven't already. I could seriously see him yelling an congress with a machine gun in his hand. Congress is strangely the more stable body at this point. Usually its the other way around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed 100%! People should be and are allowed to hold any opinions they want, even if they are offensive, ignorant, or just egregiously stupid (like this example). We have laws, as long as they are not breaking a law, they can do exactly what they please and express any opinion they want, even if it is to the detriment of themselves and negatively influence others. Anything else is oppression. We have a system of laws that limit the harm they can do to others.
Censorship in *any* form cannot be tole
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Censorship in *any* form cannot be tolerated in a free society
What about doxing information? What about your medical records? What about involuntary pornography, including of children? What about state secrets vital for defence?
There are things that should be censored. Not all that many, but they exist. No country in the world has zero censorship of any kind, it's always a question of where the line is.
If you really want to support freedom of speech you have to accept that and frame your arguments in that context, otherwise they will be dismissed because it's easy to find examples of things most people do want censored.
Re: (Score:2)
In point of fact, your home address is public record, and can be viewed by anyone.
Take time to learn what free speech means (Score:2)
Instead of considering "things most people do want censored" I suggest that Americans consider that much has been dealt with in freedom of speech, far more than most people are aware of. Take time to read already-argued American law on this and read opinion of people who do research on free speech. Some specific examples of the latter include Nadine Strossen's "Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex and the Fight for Women's Rights" and "Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship". I ha
Disinformation is not a point of view (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, by the way, twerking an algorithm to downplay one opinion or another, that's censorship.
Disinformation is not a point of view.
Lies are not opinions.
Furthermore these liars aren't just casually talking about their lies. They are actively gaming the system to promote their lies above normal discourse. Why do they deserve a disproportionate boost from cheating? There aren't an infinite number of top slots - how many people look past the first page or two of google search results? Why do the anti-vaxx liars deserve any of those top slots over factual results?
Re: Really? (Score:2)
I am only 99% pro vaccination.
I got my vaccines, and my kids got theirs. I have no doubt that they fully work as advertised. But there are things to be discussed nonetheless, like:
When vaccinating a few months-old bany, one is making an immense intrusion into the immune system at a most sensitive time, namely before it is actually developed into its "ripe" form (2-3 years of age). Do we really, fully, understand all of the implications? (Hint: no, we don't. Who ever suggests we do is being dishonest.) What
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Full enough censorship to suppress them is probably not achievable unless you're willing to kill a bunch of people.
That's why it is so much more realistic to just vaccinate by force, and not bother with "censorship."
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'd like to see this solved without censorship too, you reminded me of an old Isaac Asimov quote:
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to play on both sides of the fence. Your "opinion" is no better than anyone else's regardless of what you perceive your edumication to be
If I'm a physician and you're not, you bet your ass my opinion on vaccination is better than yours. If I've consulted experts (for example, anything the CDC has said on the subject) about the consequences of my private business refusing to publish the ranting of antivaxers, --and you haven't-- then yes, my opinion is better than yours.
Equality means that eac
Re: (Score:3)
I kind of think its a bigger problem that just censorship - there's a lot of fringe movements that are growing rapidly because of social media (see flat earthers) - some of these movement really do affect public heath. It is kinda scary that a good chunk of the anti-vaxer movement started with two people - and now its a world-wide phenomenon with no end in site. Policy decisions really do need to be grounded in actual science.
Facebook was used to incite violence in Myanmar - something that may not have happ
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, by the way, twerking an algorithm to downplay one opinion or another, that's censorship.
No it's not, that's sales and marketing.
FB and Twitter created this mess when they settled on a business model that funneled people into bubbles that reinforced their kooky ideas.
If anything it's the opposite of censorship because it amplifies crazy voices.
Now though, they are popping some of those bubbles, which only goes partway to fixing the problem they created.
But they're doing it to protect their own butts because it's just a matter of time before they have to settle a $trillion+ class action sui
Re: (Score:2)
If the geek has the website, they're the publisher. They sure as fuck do get to choose if they want to publish an author, or not. That's true regardless of how many lame authors they have, too.
And never twerk an algorithm. If you can't dance, get off the floor.
It's not censorship ... (Score:2)
When somebody chooses not to allow something on their dollar. If the anti-vax want push their own agenda they should put their money where their mouth is.
Social media companies and tax payers and should not be forced to fund their ignorance.
Re: Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Agree 100% (Score:5, Insightful)
But the conspiracy theorists don't need more ammunition, and we don't need to set any bad precedents here.
I do think that in many cases "mandatory truth" is a better solution than censorship--basically, sources have to give a disclaimer that what they're about to say has been thoroughly disproved by science. Not for casual conversation between individuals (that too would be a precedent I wouldn't want to see happen), but for all commercial text and commercial-sponsored text... why not? It's the equivalent of the warning label on cigarettes. "This shit can kill you if you actually use it." Warning labels on bad ideas--much more effective than banning them, I think.
Re:Agree 100% (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with all these conspiracy theories is that they rely on simple, easy to understand ideas and part of the conspiracy is that real doctors and scientists are untrustworthy.
The truth is more complex, you need real knowledge of medicine to really understand it, and the information comes from people who have already been depicted as liars and malicious actors.
Anti-vax is one of the worst because it plays on people's fears for their children, some of the strongest instincts we have as human beings.
The only way it seems to get resolved is either mandatory vaccination or you just let some children die or get brain damaged or disfigured, and let them act as a warning that is more powerful than the anecdotal "my kid got autism from MMR!" And just to be clear, letting kids die is not a desirable solution, especially as the ones dying are sometimes the ones who did get vaccinated.
Re: (Score:3)
part of the conspiracy is that real doctors and scientists are untrustworthy.
There was a time when doctors recommended smoking tobacco. Imagine if we had censored and silenced the anti-tobacco lobby, and made Tobacco consumption mandatory in response.
The Truth Vaccine (Score:2)
As with vaccines, exposure to the truth is not 100% effective. But it's better than nothing, and as with vaccines there is a herd immunity sort of effect.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with people not being vaccinated as long as they buy bubble suits and wear them at all times when in public to prevent them from contaminating us. Breathing germs on me should be considered assault when you have the option to prevent yourself from bearing those germs. It's really on par with saying you have the right to swing your fists wherever you want an
Re: (Score:2)
Speech vs propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be one of the defining issues of our era - how to balance the notion of free speech with the newfound ease for people to create and promote propaganda?
Most people do not have the ability, when bombarded on hundreds of different issues, to separate truth from fiction. That makes it worse - well-funded actors can create what amount to alternate realities, and people don't seem to be able to break out of them.
It will probably get worse, as the ability to falsify videos becomes better. It will be possible to irrefutably rewrite history. Imagine if someone "unearthed" a trove of recordings that purported to "prove" that the Holocaust was made-up by Roosevelt and Churchill to get the US involved in WW2, while simultaneously showing evidence that life in Germany was thriving under Hitler, and that the US conspired to take him down because his economic policies threatened a world order which had the US and England at the top? If someone did this properly, they could easily convince 25% of the population of its truth.
Re: (Score:2)
48%
Re: Speech vs propaganda (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not being wrong would help (Score:4, Insightful)
It would help if public health authorities weren't so disastrously wrong so often. The Food Pyramid alone is enough to make entire generations distrust everything government "experts" say about anything.
The next thing that would help is an end to ad hominems as a widely accepted response to any argument. Any study with an inconvenient result is always funded by big [whatever], so no thinking is needed.
Deplatforming as a tactic to deal with ideas is right there on the list. If "shut up" is an acceptable argument, then expect anti-vaxxers to use it too.
You want people to use reason and facts, use them yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Government lying to the population is an extremely bad thing, because the population will not listen when they are not lying.
However, the anti-vaxxers (much like the flat-earthers, or really any kind of worldly or religious fanatic) are not accessible to rational argument. They are special-topic Dunning-Kruger far-left and as such cannot even comprehend that they may be wrong, too mentally blocked in this specific question.
Re: (Score:2)
That’s one vote against facts and reason from you then.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you anti vaxx assholes
I'm pro-vaccination.
Do you know why anti-vaxxers don't trust or listen to people like you? Because you are a jerk and you get even the simplest things wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
11 servings of carbs is terrible advice, regardless of whether it can conclusively be proven to have caused any particular result.
Government busybodies telling us what to eat isn't helping. Beyond the most basic safety, their input is counterproductive, directly and indirectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Science evolved.
So government shouldn't be giving people shit advice. Beyond basic safety, government should butt out of our diets.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not a scientist. You should be giving zero advice. Poor diet is the #1 most preventable health problem in America and even as flawed as it is, if America followed the food pyramid AT ALL, they'd be better off than now.
You're a libertarian manchild retard who defends nicotine industries, chemical industries, pollution generally, all sorts of massive health-affecting problems.
You should butt the fuck out of health, science, and advice generally. You know nothing about it.
Hey anti-vaxxers! If you change your mind, you might be as happy and well-adjusted as this guy. Clearly not a complete crank. Don't you want to join him?
Re: (Score:2)
The Food Pyramid always said to limit consumption of sugars, and obesity went up as nerds on slashdot drank Mountain Dew by the 2L bottle.
It wasn't wrong.
Parts of it were incomplete; grains should be whole grains if they're as big a portion of the diet as the pyramid recommends.
Re: (Score:2)
This "debate" needs to end. It's not about being "nice" or "well-mannered," it's about public health / safety. If you can't comprehend that, then by all means go infect yourself, but do it in isolation* so no-one else has to suffer because of your disinformation and heartfelt "beliefs."
That attitude will lead people to conclude (correctly?) that you don't give a shit about them and they should be suspicious of anything you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that's government getting it wrong. Government is the whole thing, not just the part you are happy with.
It doesn't have to be censored (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's the difference? (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I support deplatforming anti-vaxxers. At a certain point if you're running a site and you allow misinformation to spread on your site, often for your own profit (anti-vaxxer posts generate ad revenue same as everything else) you're complicit. If it were me I wouldn't want to
Re: (Score:2)
The intention always should be for the cream to rise to the top, and the dross to sink to the bottom. It doesn't stop someone from seeking out the results from a few pages in, or bookmarking / following them
Incorrect assumptions made. (Score:2, Insightful)
"removing entire categories of speech from a platform does little to solve the underlying problems."
The problem is not foolish ideas, it's the spread of foolish ideas. Nobody is attempting to stop anti-vaxxers from being fools, they are attempting to stop fools from infecting other fools with their foolish ideas.
"Tech companies and online platforms have other ways to address the rapid spread of disinformation
But they are both more complex and less effective.
Platforms must address one of the root causes behind disinformation's spread online: the algorithms that decide what content users see and when.
Incorrect! The root cause of disinformation's spread is that fools believe disinformation because it lights up their right amygdala with fear. Far too many humans rely mostly on emotion and do and believe what feels good rather than what is fact
Re: (Score:3)
Idealism is great but we need to admit that some people are ruled by their emotions and will fight you tooth and nail out of fear.
People who aren't under attack tend not to "fight tooth and nail". One thing that would help quell fear is less aggressive government.
Instead we have politics that's dominated by revenge and hatred. That seems like something one might be wise to fear — except if you happen to notice that all the aggression and revenge and hatred ends up not actually changing much.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that would help quell fear is less aggressive government.
If they're being incited to irrational fear and not actually persecuted by the government, then that is absolutely not true.
Censorship is evil (Score:2)
Censorship is always evil.
Refusing to vaccinate yourself and endangering society is selfish and reprehensible at best. Refusing to vaccinate your kids and putting their health and welfare in danger is evil. Don't censor the anti-vaxxers. Instead you should take their kids away and put them in foster care for the good of the kids and society.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for that. Just mandate vaccinations to go to any public place, office (also a doctor's), school, shopping mall, etc. If they want to build their own community out in the dessert somewhere, that is fine by me. But they have no place among regular folks.
This is a shared commitment to public health. (Score:2)
Billboards, Threats and Hesitancy ... (Score:2)
Related to this discussion ...
The anti-vaxxers in Canada are becoming more active and aggressive, buying billboard ads in Toronto [www.cbc.ca], and threatening physicians [www.cbc.ca].
The impact is that a portion of the population have become vaccine hesitant [www.cbc.ca], affected by the anti-vaxxer misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's up with Americans threatening Canadian physicians over their position on vaccinations?
The threats to both doctors were reported to police.
Both physicians said police told them the IP addresses for the emails were in the U.S.
It's not like Canadian doctors are going to be coming down south and sticking people with needles. The anti-vaxers are just plain nuts.
embrace the lies (Score:4, Funny)
So some people believe something they heard from some crank on the internet more than they believe peer-reviewed scientific research or the experience of their parents, friends and practically everyone else around them. Use it...
Allow a theory to emerge that the MMR vaccine offers some resistance to the generically mutated anthrax that the army plans to test secretly on rural communities. Then strenuously refute that rumor in an official message from the government, and at the same time announce a shortage of the vaccine.
censorship is NOT the right way (Score:2)
Censorship is not connected to truth (Score:3)
Censorship is connected to power. Anti-vaxxers are anti-truth, where they stand with regards to power varies. Hence they have to be fought by providing truth. Fighting them using censorship is very dangerous and only will make them feel even more justified in their demented stance.
That said, of course if there is a larger outbreak, I am not opposed to mandatory vaccinations or isolation of those non-vaccinated. Accepting individual stupidity can go only so far if it threatens society.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is connected to power. Anti-vaxxers are anti-truth, where they stand with regards to power varies. Hence they have to be fought by providing truth. Fighting them using censorship is very dangerous and only will make them feel even more justified in their demented stance.
Fighting them with truth doesn't work either. Just like other crazy people, such as creationists or flat-earthers, the truth they are denying is well established and beyond any reasonable doubt. Attempting to fight them with truth is pointless because they've already decided to close the ears to it and because engaging them in public debate only serves to legitimize them in the eyes of uneducated fence-sitters. Conspiracy theorists just entrench themselves and close the brains when faced with an onslaught
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is NEVER the answer (Score:2)
The only way to combat bad information is with good information. If you can't argue your position, then maybe your position is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You're implying that the audience has the interest to listen and the capacity to decide which information is real and which is BS. Those are some big assumptions.
There really are some stupid people in the world who can't be reasoned with. Quite a few of them, I'm afraid.
a deadly example (Score:2)
The pharmas don't have a great track record. If I say, well there have been pharma disasters that outright killed people, including a lot of kids, you might mention drug disasters, medical experiments gone awry, or old vaccine incidents of the 1940-1950s, but "not today". WRONG
French vaccine maker Sanofi Pasteur recently wangled a school vaccine program with its new Dengvaxi
Precedent (Score:3)
Given that smoking in public places got banned because of the health effects on passive smokers I think Anti-Vaxers should be banned from public places like schools. Why not deport them to Africa, they cannot afford vaccination there so they should fit in perfectly.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not deport them to Africa, they cannot afford vaccination there so they should fit in perfectly.
Uh... have you checked the vaccination rates outside the US? Not every nation in Africa does as poorly as the US.
The real problem (Score:2)
is a lack of critical thinking skills. Censorship won't fix that, but it will stop the damage being done until the missing critical thinking skills can be taught to the dopes (assuming it's possible to teach critical thinking).
Education (Score:2)
I was taught the importance of hand washing at home as a child. Yet at primary school I was taught again because some children still needed to be taught the importance of hand washing after using the toilet. As adults the majority of people understand the reasons. However I often notice people leaving a toilet cubicle and heading out the door without washing and expect they were never taught the importance or just choose to ignore it.
Education is the key, but some people will still not learn, the best wa
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's not the only answer, and not even a good o (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with that idea is that there is a small subset of the population that cannot get vaccinated because of autoimmune diseases. Also, children don't get certain vaccines until they're older. We would have to quarantine all babies if we didn't want them to get measles because some assholes were given the "right" to abstain from vaccinations.
If people want to live in a vaccine-less society I have no problem with that. They just have to go buy an island and all move there. Usually I frown on the "if you don't like it, move somewhere else" argument, but in this case the very presence of these people can cause harm to the community. You can't make it about your personal right to abstain from vaccines when that choice can harm others.
Re: (Score:3)
We would have to quarantine all babies ...
Especially on airplanes - *not* because they're extra super annoying, but because of, um... air, in an enclosed space.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: It's not the only answer, and not even a good (Score:3, Interesting)
As an exercise, now substitute "vaccinated" in your sentence with "use a seatbelt/helmet" or "make people stop at traffic lights".
Re:It's not the only answer, and not even a good o (Score:5, Insightful)
Your personal freedom ends where my personal freedom begins. If I buy a permit to speak in a building that's public property and you show up with a megaphone to drown me out, your freedoms aren't being impinged when you're thrown out, mine are just being protected. Similarly, if you want to live in the wilderness of Montana like the Unabomber and never come in contact with society, then I don't care if you get vaccinated. But once you come in contact with society, you are impinging on the rights of others by not being vaccinated.
I would completely agree with the OP if there were not individuals who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate reasons and if we could vaccinate all fetuses before they exit the womb. If that were the case, I would view it as a personal decision and the person could deal with the consequences. However, that is not the case. It's not like a seatbelt law, where it's just to protect the individual. It's more like the laws that require you to have insurance if you drive on public roads.
Re: (Score:3)
Living in a society means that we sometimes have to make sacrifices for each other. I pay more in health insurance premiums than I use in health care costs, but that means that I am helping some other sick person pay for their care. Then, when (or if, but probably when) I get sick with cancer or heart disease, they help me pay for
Re:It's not the only answer, and not even a good o (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It's not the only answer, and not even a good (Score:3)
And if my kid dies from a disease from a anti vaxxers sick kid I will treat the antivaxxer as a murderer and sue or kill it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I don't see how you can force someone to be vaccinated if they don't want to be.
Simple. Dart gun.
Re: It's not the only answer, and not even a good (Score:2)
Not being vaccinated is not personal freedom, because it may potentially step over the freedom of others.
Re: It's not the only answer, and not even a good (Score:2)
The unshattered belief that you have it all figured out, when in fact you haven't, also cauaes harm to others who cannot protect themselves against consequences of it.
So... when are you moving out?
Re: (Score:2)
The unshattered belief that you have it all figured out, when in fact you haven't, also cauaes harm to others who cannot protect themselves against consequences of it.
So... when are you moving out?
Well, if that's your standard, you ought to tag along when I leave since you apparently have the mistaken belief that you've figured out wit
Re:It's not the only answer, and not even a good o (Score:5, Interesting)
...They just have to go buy an island and all move there...
I'm all for isolated, like-minded communities, where their own values prevail - as long as they're not in any way a bother.
Unfortunately, in this information age, we have to immunize the Web from misinformation. And because I'm a Pyrrhonian skeptic, that brings up another whole can of worms.
Nonetheless, if we want our values to prevail, Cambridge Analytica has shown us the way - data mining, data brokerage & data analysis to associate someone with a group; and 'strategic communication', i.e., recurring, pervasive, targeted propaganda, con job audience participation events, etc.
BORING STUFF: We can neutralize misinformation by activating defensive responses: attack the weak points of the misinformation and/or its originators; and call on other authorities that the misinformed trust to redirect them into more acceptable alternate ideas, and to evoke doubt onto the misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
It would also be good to ask why anti vaxxing movement? Why now, when things are relatively good, cleaner and safer than in most of human history? Maybe the society as a collective is feeling some kind of stress that too much control over their lives has been transferred to various experts and that it is no way to live. Antivaxxing and flat earthing may be a manifestation of that societal stress, like a pimple on the skin. If so, until the underlying root cause is addressed, and it may take quite some time,
That's hard to do (Score:2)
To put it another way: "Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's not the only answer, and not even a good (Score:2, Funny)
I want my freedom to beat children back!
Re: It's not the only answer, and not even a good (Score:2, Insightful)
Just put up a requirement for certified vaccinations in order to attend school or get a job. Same as drug testing for certain jobs.
Re: It's not the only answer, and not even a good (Score:2)
To remix a classic Dilbert
Me: âoeI have a solution to anti- vaxxersâ
Govt: âoeShootâ
Me: âoeLucky guessâ
And as Dogbert said, âoeNext week a doctor with a flashlight will come and show us where anti-vaxxers get their ideas fromâ
Re: (Score:2)
"Anti-vaxxers will take themselves out of the equation."
Anti-vaxxers themselves likely have all their vaccinations. It's their children that are in danger, but they can always make more.
Re: You are STUPID. (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep calling people names, that's SURE to change their opinion...
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic (Score:3)
Many people speak of violence against the anti-vax people... Far more people oppose mandatory vaccination than get infected at the moment. It would be a counter productive policy to harm and kill them...
You are free to shame anti-vaxers just as you do racists; but you can't outlaw their speech or shouldn't because it's always a problem of who decides for everybody else. It's not only a libertarian position. For speech it's constitutional, not libertarian... and speech is more dangerous than some virus.
You
Re: (Score:2)
Well there was this recent research that after a pig died its brain cells were revived to show activity, so can we really be absolutely sure that being dead is an on-off switch rather than some sort of transition? In which case, logically, removing the organs very early might affect that transition?
Although no one will complain, that's for sure. (At least not through ordinary channels...)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep calling people names, that's SURE to change their opinion...
There is no need to change the opinions of the people with the zombie virus, or whatever their excuse is for trying to infect people.
If we can incite a mob, we can probably convince others to vaccinate them by force. It is the undecided who need to be informed how dangerous these monsters are to the children.
Re: (Score:2)
0.2% is for INFECTED people who die. 330 million are not exposed or infected. maybe 1000 are infected right now, last I heard no deaths? I skip the media hype over this non issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the vast majority of the anti-vax populous are the educated... And they are overwhelmed and fearful. So, yes, the spread of antivax propaganda (NOT "fake news") has to be stopped.
Censorship? Maybe.
It's not lawful to yell "fire!" where there isn't one either. Yet that's not called censorship. This isn't either.
This time, The EFF has it's head in, shall we say, the wrong place.
Re: (Score:2)
Education disabuses people of ridiculous notions.
Like hell it does. Education provides people who are undecided with some information. They may or may not then internalize that information as some sort of belief. If people already have beliefs, "education" is just wrong information you waste their time preaching at them, and their notions haven't changed at all.
Or shorter; the mind is not a glass to be filled with knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the definition of what a "lie" is is fluid (to non-experts) and depends on who has the power.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously are going to claim that in litigation nation newer vaccines have worse side-effects? Are you utterly demented? At least come up with credible lies...
As to flu-shots being ineffective, that is so far from the truth it is staggering. You must be unable to comprehend even basic statistics. Or, more likely, you did not even bother to check.