info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Should bad science be censored on social media?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
The Great COVID Syphilis Lie of 2020
Jan 25, 2022, 7:05:03 AM1/25/22
to
How do you solve a problem like bad information?
When it comes to understanding science and making health decisions,
it can have life-or-death consequences.
People dissuaded from taking vaccines as a result of reading
misleading information online have ended up in hospital or even
died.
And inaccurate or completely made-up claims about 5G and the origins
of Covid-19 have been linked to violence and vandalism.
But completely removing information can look a lot like censorship,
especially for scientists whose careers are based on the
understanding that facts can and should be disputed, and that
evidence changes.
The Royal Society is the world's oldest continuously operating
scientific institution, and it is attempting to grapple with the
challenges posed by our newest ways of communicating information.
In a new report, it advises against social media companies removing
content that is "legal but harmful". Instead, the report authors
believe, social media sites should adjust their algorithms to
prevent it going viral - and stop people making money off false
claims.
But not everyone agrees with that view - especially researchers who
are experts in tracking the way misinformation spreads online, and
how it harms people.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) maintains there are
cases when the best thing to do is to remove content when it is very
harmful, clearly wrong and spreading very widely.
The team points to Plandemic - a video that went viral at the start
of the pandemic, making dangerous and false claims designed to scare
people away from effective ways of reducing harm from the virus,
like vaccines and masks, and was eventually taken down.
Social media companies were better primed for the video's sequel
Plandemic 2, which fell flat after being restricted on major
platforms, having nothing like the same reach as the first video.
"It's a political question...what balance we see between individual
liberties and some form of restrictions on what people can and
cannot say," says Prof Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford.
Prof Nielsen acknowledges that, although it's a relatively small
part of people's media diets, science misinformation can lead to
disproportionate harm.
'Harder to reach'
The fact that those corners are "harder to reach", though, is
arguably part of the point. It reduces the risk that someone who is
not already committed to potentially harmful beliefs, and isn't
seeking them out, will be exposed to them by chance.
Some of the violent protests that were driven at least in part by
conspiracies had their origin not in obscure corners of the
internet, but on Facebook. And there is little clear evidence that
removing content drives people further into harmful beliefs.
Change the algorithm
Scientific misinformation is nothing new.
The HIV misinformation still circulating in 2021
The incorrect belief in a link between the MMR vaccine and autism
came from a published (and later retracted) academic paper, while
widespread unevidenced beliefs in the harm of water fluoridation
were driven by the print media, campaign groups and word of mouth.
What's changed is the speed at which false facts travel, and the
huge numbers of people who can end up reading them.
Rather than removing content, one way suggested by the report's
authors of tackling misinformation is making it harder to find and
share, and less likely to appear automatically on someone's feed.
This, Prof Gina Neff, a social scientist at the Oxford Internet
Institute explained, was to "ensure that people still can speak
their mind" - they just aren't guaranteed an audience of millions.
"They can still post this information, but the platforms don't have
to make it go viral."
Fact-checking
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a think tank which
monitors extremism, points out a substantial proportion of
misinformation relies on the appropriation and misuse of genuine
data and research.
"This is sometimes more dangerous than outright false information,
because it can take substantially longer to debunk by explaining how
and why this is a misreading or misuse of the data," its
spokesperson says.
That's where fact-checking comes in - another tool which the Royal
Society supports.
One of the most common pieces of vaccine misinformation over the
past year - which the BBC has repeatedly fact-checked - was the
notion that people are being harmed in high numbers by the jab. This
claim is based on a misinterpretation of real figures.
De-platforming individuals
The ISD says research has shown that a small group of accounts
spreading misinformation had a "disproportionate influence on the
public debate across social media".
"Many of these accounts have been labelled by fact-checkers as
sharing false or misleading content on multiple occasions, yet
remain live."
The Royal Society did not investigate removing the accounts of
"influencers" who are especially prolific spreaders of harmful
misinformation.
But this is seen as an important tool by many disinformation
experts, and research into ISIS and the far-right suggests it can be
successful.
When David Icke, a prolific spreader of Covid misinformation as well
as anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, was removed from YouTube,
research from the CCDH found his ability to reach people was
considerably reduced.
While his videos remained on alternative video-hosting platform
BitChute, their views fell from 150,000 on average before the
YouTube ban to 6,711 afterwards. On YouTube, 64 of his videos had
been viewed 9.6 million times.
Research from Cardiff University, found that the de-platforming of
Kate Shemirani, a former nurse and prolific spreader of Covid
misinformation, decreased her reach in the short term.
"Part of the issue is that current models of de-platforming need to
be developed. It's not enough to just take down a piece of content,
or a small number of accounts," one of the paper's authors - Prof
Martin Innes - explains.
Research from organised crime and counter-terrorism shows the need
to disrupt the whole network, he says.
But he believes "this level of sophistication isn't embedded yet" in
the way we tackle disinformation that could put people in danger.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60036861
When it comes to understanding science and making health decisions,
it can have life-or-death consequences.
People dissuaded from taking vaccines as a result of reading
misleading information online have ended up in hospital or even
died.
And inaccurate or completely made-up claims about 5G and the origins
of Covid-19 have been linked to violence and vandalism.
But completely removing information can look a lot like censorship,
especially for scientists whose careers are based on the
understanding that facts can and should be disputed, and that
evidence changes.
The Royal Society is the world's oldest continuously operating
scientific institution, and it is attempting to grapple with the
challenges posed by our newest ways of communicating information.
In a new report, it advises against social media companies removing
content that is "legal but harmful". Instead, the report authors
believe, social media sites should adjust their algorithms to
prevent it going viral - and stop people making money off false
claims.
But not everyone agrees with that view - especially researchers who
are experts in tracking the way misinformation spreads online, and
how it harms people.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) maintains there are
cases when the best thing to do is to remove content when it is very
harmful, clearly wrong and spreading very widely.
The team points to Plandemic - a video that went viral at the start
of the pandemic, making dangerous and false claims designed to scare
people away from effective ways of reducing harm from the virus,
like vaccines and masks, and was eventually taken down.
Social media companies were better primed for the video's sequel
Plandemic 2, which fell flat after being restricted on major
platforms, having nothing like the same reach as the first video.
"It's a political question...what balance we see between individual
liberties and some form of restrictions on what people can and
cannot say," says Prof Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford.
Prof Nielsen acknowledges that, although it's a relatively small
part of people's media diets, science misinformation can lead to
disproportionate harm.
'Harder to reach'
The fact that those corners are "harder to reach", though, is
arguably part of the point. It reduces the risk that someone who is
not already committed to potentially harmful beliefs, and isn't
seeking them out, will be exposed to them by chance.
Some of the violent protests that were driven at least in part by
conspiracies had their origin not in obscure corners of the
internet, but on Facebook. And there is little clear evidence that
removing content drives people further into harmful beliefs.
Change the algorithm
Scientific misinformation is nothing new.
The HIV misinformation still circulating in 2021
The incorrect belief in a link between the MMR vaccine and autism
came from a published (and later retracted) academic paper, while
widespread unevidenced beliefs in the harm of water fluoridation
were driven by the print media, campaign groups and word of mouth.
What's changed is the speed at which false facts travel, and the
huge numbers of people who can end up reading them.
Rather than removing content, one way suggested by the report's
authors of tackling misinformation is making it harder to find and
share, and less likely to appear automatically on someone's feed.
This, Prof Gina Neff, a social scientist at the Oxford Internet
Institute explained, was to "ensure that people still can speak
their mind" - they just aren't guaranteed an audience of millions.
"They can still post this information, but the platforms don't have
to make it go viral."
Fact-checking
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a think tank which
monitors extremism, points out a substantial proportion of
misinformation relies on the appropriation and misuse of genuine
data and research.
"This is sometimes more dangerous than outright false information,
because it can take substantially longer to debunk by explaining how
and why this is a misreading or misuse of the data," its
spokesperson says.
That's where fact-checking comes in - another tool which the Royal
Society supports.
One of the most common pieces of vaccine misinformation over the
past year - which the BBC has repeatedly fact-checked - was the
notion that people are being harmed in high numbers by the jab. This
claim is based on a misinterpretation of real figures.
De-platforming individuals
The ISD says research has shown that a small group of accounts
spreading misinformation had a "disproportionate influence on the
public debate across social media".
"Many of these accounts have been labelled by fact-checkers as
sharing false or misleading content on multiple occasions, yet
remain live."
The Royal Society did not investigate removing the accounts of
"influencers" who are especially prolific spreaders of harmful
misinformation.
But this is seen as an important tool by many disinformation
experts, and research into ISIS and the far-right suggests it can be
successful.
When David Icke, a prolific spreader of Covid misinformation as well
as anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, was removed from YouTube,
research from the CCDH found his ability to reach people was
considerably reduced.
While his videos remained on alternative video-hosting platform
BitChute, their views fell from 150,000 on average before the
YouTube ban to 6,711 afterwards. On YouTube, 64 of his videos had
been viewed 9.6 million times.
Research from Cardiff University, found that the de-platforming of
Kate Shemirani, a former nurse and prolific spreader of Covid
misinformation, decreased her reach in the short term.
"Part of the issue is that current models of de-platforming need to
be developed. It's not enough to just take down a piece of content,
or a small number of accounts," one of the paper's authors - Prof
Martin Innes - explains.
Research from organised crime and counter-terrorism shows the need
to disrupt the whole network, he says.
But he believes "this level of sophistication isn't embedded yet" in
the way we tackle disinformation that could put people in danger.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60036861
BeamMeUpScotty
Jan 25, 2022, 10:40:23 AM1/25/22
to
The idea of science is that any hypothesis is valid science... questions
are the essence of science.
The answers already exist so we have to ask the correct questions but,
the only way to know which are valid is to test them *after* they've
been asked and then be able to repeat that test and get the same answer
over and over.
Which is a bit ironic since the Definition of stupidity is to do the
same dumb thing over and over and expect a different answer.
Some say that doing the same failed thing over and over and expecting a
different outcome is insanity, I say it better fits the description of
stupidity.
Democrats seem to be confused between the idea of stupidity and
science... yes you test an hypothesis endlessly against all possible
outcomes with different inputs but you don't keep endlessly trying the
same failures.
Thomas Edison didn't use the same filament in every light-bulb test.
Yet Democrats want to take their failures and spread them into wider use
despite the fact they have failed everywhere they were tried.
Slavery doesn't work, Democrats keep renaming it and retrying to
implement it again and again, after they know the core FUNDAMENTAL base
that slavery is built on, will always fail.
--
That's Karma
*IF YOU'RE READING THIS YOU ARE A SURVIVOR*
*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is we talk about it, we hate
censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you. Make them
prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you didn't
find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you then
you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber* *Doctrine* is the
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://rumble.com/vkt8ld-call-it-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-or-whatever.-how-libs-exploit-t.html
*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is
108 - Liberal-Democrats as we know, want all the money, benefits and
accolades.... but they want *none* of the responsibility, work or
consequences.
0 new messages