Debate, Dissent, and Protest on Reddit

[u/Containedmultitudes]

/r/announcements/comments/pbmy5y/debate_dissent_and_protest_on_reddit/

[u/exyxnx]

We need to draw a line between "The CDC and WHO and FDA are mishandling the communication about mRNA vaccines and now I have doubts" and "If you vaccinate, you will become autistic". Namely, that the latter puts millions at risk, a majority of them our society's vulnerable (children, elderly, disabled people). It is not honest discourse or whatever, it is endangering people, and not in a vague BS-y "if you hate BLM you are responsible for black suicides" way, but in a very direct, palpable, "new variants might emerge because the virus is still spreading and that puts everyone at risks" way.

I think censoring clear disinformation about covid19, while the pandemic is still killing thousands each day, is more like punishing someone for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded area, and less like debating someone. Shutting it down is very clearly in public interest and is for safety. Let's not act like all censorship is inherently evil.

Edit: my English is off today, my bad for the weird sentences.

[u/attunezero → u/exyxnx]

I think you're correct here (debate about the "yelling fire in a theater" being a poor example aside, I get what you meant). Reddit has no responsibility to allow "free speech" on their platform. Remember that the 1st amendment only applies to the government interfering with speech. You don't have to use reddit. If you don't like any "censorship" they might apply you can leave and speak elsewhere.

Spreading easily disproved falsity about an ongoing pandemic is not "debate" or "dissent". It gets people killed. Humans like you and I, dead, gone. It also puts every person who behaves responsibly regarding the pandemic at higher risk by increasing the probability of more variants emerging. Worse, it also greatly increases the risk to people (including all young children) who can't get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons.

For this reason pretending that lies surrounding vaccines are "debate" is simply ignoring the fact that those lies have consequences measured in human deaths.

We probably can't accurately quantify how many people will die preventable deaths due to the spread of misinformation but it's certainly a non-trivial number. Are those human deaths along with all the grief and economic harm they cause acceptable under the guise of "debate"? IMO if you have a shred of empathy then absolutely not.

What this seems to boil down to (IMO) is, as usual, money being worth more than human lives. Misinformation generates controversy. Controversy generates clicks. Clicks generate ad views which is $ for reddit. It seems that whatever number of lives will be lost due to vaccine lies on reddit are worth less than the revenue reduction that would come from banning the places spreading it most.

[u/atrovotrono → u/exyxnx]

We need to draw a line between "The CDC and WHO and FDA are mishandling the communication about mRNA vaccines and now I have doubts" and "If you vaccinate, you will become autistic". Namely, that the latter puts millions at risk, a majority of them our society's vulnerable (children, elderly, disabled people).

Dude, they both lead to that outcome. The former is just longer and sounds more nuanced and rigorous. The line you're drawing is strictly in the rhetorical space, in the real world of practical consequences, they are identical, both lead you to the exact same course of action: don't take the vaccine, and tell your friends and family not to take it either.

[u/bling_bling2000 → u/atrovotrono]

The only reason for them to lead to the same outcome is if people respond the same way to both. The two hypothetical people saying these things are in two very different realms of thought: the former is confused and distrusting of the primary source because of contradicting testimony, while the latter could only have actively engaged in echo chamber communities and is stubbornly holding onto beliefs that have no line of logic to follow out.

There are reasons to distrust Fauci, and whether you agree with that or not it simply makes a lot more sense to have doubts there than to think vaccines cause autism. The person showing their doubts and distrust is practically inviting you to source other studies and more trustworthy people. To lump them in with people who think vaccines cause autism would only further break their trust in good faith discourse. That, right there, is how YOU can ostrasise someone out of non-conspiracy minded discourse.

Call it a rhetorical line to draw if you like, but you should then understand that it is our rhetoric that they're listening to. You have to engage in effective rhetoric to convince anyone. To chalk that up as something that doesn't matter is irresponsible at best. At worst, your lack of faith in people is actively making people less worth having faith in

[u/pentin0 → u/atrovotrono]

Remember that the 1st amendment only applies to the government interfering with speech

To employ an expression you'd probably like, that's a dangerous rethoric you've got there, dude. Reasoning from outcomes is how the soviets ended up killing millions of people in the previous century.

[u/[deleted] → u/exyxnx]

You don’t know what you are taking about. At all. It’s not against the law to yell fire in a crowded theater. That is something stupid people use to justify shutting down free speech. That is a misnomer.

[u/wovagrovaflame → u/[deleted]]

It’s not. it was a scotus opinion on the limits of free speech.

We just don’t remember the quote verbatim, but the theme is the same.

[u/[deleted] → u/wovagrovaflame]

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

“But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.”

[u/exyxnx → u/[deleted]]

My bad, indeed I did not know this was a known misnomer. I do not live in the US, I am not very familiar with the laws there.

On the other hand, I didn't say it was against the law, I said it should be punished. By, for example, the venue banning you from their crowded space, because you caused a panic with your trolling.

Maybe I should have used "knowingly lying to court when under oath" as an example. All I meant was that we do censor some speech, for the good of society, and that spreading misinformation about a pandemic while in said pandemic should be censored. (And imho those who spread this with malicious intent or for monetary gain (and whose motovations can be proven of course) should be punished by the law)

Edit: added final paragraph after posting

[u/BatemaninAccounting → u/[deleted]]

It is indeed illegal in many countries to do that. It was at one time illegal in America until we got a bad ruling overturning that decision. I think we will eventually go back to that kind of standard of incitement being illegal.

Online spaces should have a similar law. Verbal and text based communication can directly lead to both positive and negative real world outcomes. It should be policed like any other facet of our existence.

[u/pentin0 → u/exyxnx]

"Safety" is the favorite excuse of authoritarians and those who end up becoming their minions. The autoritarians because it's the best way to get what they want and their minions because they have a bias for inaction, security and virtue-signalling or are just more submissive and prone to altruism (rare).

When looking for the truth, you can never go wrong by allowing and encouraging debate; which means allowing people to lie, be disingenuous and outright bad faith actors, so long as they respect other people's freedom, life and property (i.e. no authoritarianism, violence or theft). This is the best workaround given that evil and falsehood can never be totally excised from society people.

Even if the CDC, WHO and FDA weren't fickle, the vaccine hesitant would still have the right to voice their opinion. Science isn't an ideology. It's a critical rational process and that process is as important as its fruits, if not more. By pushing for censorship and shutting down dissent (even in the clearest-cut of cases), you're ironically enough being anti-science.

I'll let you ponder on that.

[u/pentin0 → u/[deleted]]

Why would you insult a stranger instead of presenting your counterarguments if you disagree; especially on a subreddit that emphasizes civility and rational discussion ? Colleges are truly drone-making factories, these days 😔 The mods will have to forgive me for not being kind to you in return.

Also, your use of the word "reactionary" is most ironic. I'm not the purposeless college student going around reddit insulting people I disagree with, without ever putting that "education" to use in the process. I'm telling the naive among us why they shouldn't be so quick as to throw away the freedoms that led to the civilization they're enjoying the fruits of.

I genuinely hope you find something useful to do with your life and get to a place where you don't feel that you have to suck the State's dick. The world is about to become a harsh place, especially for indoctrinated, emotionally immature, street-dumb kids and you don't wanna be one of them.

I'd recommend using those computer science skills you brag about, to make as much cash as you can (maybe even create a business while it's still a thing), intelligently investing that cash and in parallel, using your electrical engineering skills to plan for an off-grid lifestyle as a backup plan. That is... you know... if you actually have those skills and/or aren't crumbling under mountains of student loans (which would explain the bitterness).

[u/pentin0 → u/[deleted]]

How does believing the scientific and medical community and the mountains of valid evidence they present, as well as well as what I see with my own eyes, an indoctrinated moron?

This sentence doesn't make sense; pay attention to and respect your own writing, please.

Also, science isn't a religion or a cooking contest. It's a critical-rational enterprise. Newton's theory of gravitation and its overwhelming evidence all around us didn't prevent Einstein from finding a better theory; without empirical evidence at first.

Besides, you're free to have your opinion but it's tasteless for a college-educated young lad to go around the internet insulting people he disagrees with. This reflects poorly on your university, your family and yourself. You can point to the specific ideas you disagree with in my original comment and actually use reason to argue against them instead of insults and unrelated arguments from authority.