Censorship Climate change Intelligent Design

Google’s COVID vaccine info purge: The point many people seem to miss

Spread the love

American Council on Science and Health notes,

YouTube announced last week that it’s banning a number of high-profile anti-vaccine activists from its platform. The policy shift is meant to stem the spread of misinformation, but it raises some troubling questions. Most important among them: is more censorship worth the cost it imposes on society? …

It was the mainstream press that gave anti-vaccine activism the attention it needed to gain legitimacy in the minds of many Americans, and the coverage hasn’t stopped. In April, ABC published a badly misleading report about breakthrough COVID cases in Washington state. That same month, of all the newspapers in the world, The Washington Post published an article by Stephanie Seneff, an MIT computer scientist and well-known vaccine skeptic, who also blamed the pandemic on the weedkiller glyphosate. Of course, Fox News is guilty of the same science-free shenanigans when it comes to slanted vaccine reporting.

Cameron English, “YouTube’s COVID Purge Raises Troubling Censorship Questions” at American Council on Science and Health (October 5, 2021)

The Science Righteous are, doubtless, giggling with glee over that — and over this as well:

Late Thursday, Google announced that it is demonetizing content that makes misleading or false claims about climate change. As a result, content that calls into question or denies the scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change will not have Google advertising alongside it. In addition, Google will no longer run any advertising that “contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change.”

Eric Bangeman, “There will soon be no more ads denying climate change on Google” at Ars Technica (October 8, 2021)

English for ACSH makes a critical point:

In sum, the media has been a powerful, if unintentional, ally to the anti-vaccine movement over the years. It seems that newspapers, book publishers, and cable news networks deserve to split a good portion of the blame we have to dole out. If protecting the public from misinformation is the goal, why would we exclude giant media companies with enormous audiences from this social media purge?

There’s no reasonable answer. Either we consistently silence proponents of junk science or we don’t silence anyone. The second option is the better of the two.

Cameron English, “YouTube’s COVID Purge Raises Troubling Censorship Questions” at American Council on Science and Health (October 5, 2021)

Of course, English is assuming here that every alarm raised about vaccines is unjustifiable. Given how quickly so many anti-COVID-19 jabs were rushed onto the market, we would be awfully lucky if not a single one of them was a cure worse than the disease for many recipients. Maybe we are just that lucky this time out. But if we are not, we should want to know about it.

The bottom line is that censorship in these matters leads inevitably to huge, endemic corruption. People who have something to hide make use of censorship rules for silencing opponents. People who know what is going wrong are stifled. After a while, the rot runs so deep, it cannot be excised and the information stock simply decays.

That’s why we got rid of censorship in the first place. Not simply on the basis that people have a right to read whatever they want, as the matter is often portrayed. No, it’s more that the voices most energetically subjected to censorship will include those saying things we had better listen to. Avoidance of censorship is a key factor in the maintenance of stable democracies.

English again:

The point, however, is that social media platforms and academics who want tighter online speech restrictions are poor judges of which users are honestly discussing science and which are using academic language to misinform people.

Cameron English, “YouTube’s COVID Purge Raises Troubling Censorship Questions” at American Council on Science and Health (October 5, 2021)

Some of them won’t even be trying to be judges in the public interest. Not really. They just want to keep bad press out of circulation.

Meanwhile, Bangeman’s dumb slugger at Ars Technica is “Money Talks, Denialism Walks.”

Oh sure. As if, once Money is talking, it couldn’t just be Fact that is doing the walking. That’s the trouble with depending on the biggest bully to do your enforcing. Corruption is the feature, not the bug, of any ensuing program.

6 Replies to “Google’s COVID vaccine info purge: The point many people seem to miss

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Censorship is about caste, not content. If you’re a Correct Person, everything you say is Correct. If you’re an Incorrect Person, everything you say is Incorrect.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    In principle, I agree with John Stuart Mill that misinformation is best answered not with censorship but by better information

    ..the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.

    The only problem with that position is embodied in the aphorism, often attributed to Mark Twain, ““A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    Well it depends on who’s telling the line now doesn’t it

    This started with China and WHO
    And not to mention the fact that one of my favorite scientists just step down from the NIH because of implications that he lied about Covid and it’s origin

    Furthermore the progressive left push the narrative that it was definitely evolved and that there was no chance that it was developed

    Facebook supported the hell out of that narrative and removed anything that question that narrative and I know that from personal experience as they removed both criticisms and my satire on the subject all throughout 2020 and now they don’t

    many of those people that pushed the original narrative hide under the catch all umbrella that science is ever changing

    So here’s a few things, who’s telling the lie

    I’ll start you off with the evidence that made me think of who is telling the lie

    Especially since most of the data for masks and combating Covid came from this country

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

    In two years those are their numbers you cannot tell me that is the truth

    They are one of the densest populations in the world and one of the largest

    There is no physical possible way they contained a disease like that in a matter of months and have had no real cases this entire time

    Next we have science saying that natural immunity doesn’t and changing the definition of a vaccine from in prevents the disease (Tetanus, polio, smallpox) To reduces symptoms (flu shot) which is a load of shit

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

    And this is coming from an industry that has made $26 billion over this pandemic and is responsible for the sudden appearance of nine new billionaires

    Call it a hunch but I think there is something I amiss here

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    Oh and what happened to the two Covid nuts that were on the side this has to have them reeling

  5. 5
    Fasteddious says:

    So, “Google will no longer run any advertising that “contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change”. Does that mean when I search for and read climate sceptics on line, I will no longer be bothered by those in-your-face pop-up ads? If so, that is one good outcome, even if it means those sites will no longer get advertising dollars via Google.

  6. 6

Leave a Reply