> Unbanning Election Conspiracy Theorists and Anti-vaxxers
Why should people be banned for these? I don’t agree with either group, generally, but I don’t really see the harm either?
If the election and vaccines are so air tight, why doesn’t anyone just publish a piece tearing down the top N counterarguments? There are a few that aren’t obviously stupid and would require more research for any random person to be sure they are wrong, but I haven’t seen anyone publish solid deconstruction pieces on them. I don’t really know why, though.
It seems like it has been moralized and the people who are “right” don’t have to actually rebut arguments against their position because they are so right? I don’t get it.
>It seems like it has been moralized and the people who are “right” don’t have to actually rebut arguments against their position because they are so right? I don’t get it.
It's the opposite.
Conspiracy theorists cannot be reasoned with. Recently some people took a flat-earther to one of the poles and showed him the 24 hours of daylight to prove the earth is a spheroid, and he went into all sorts of mental gymnastics to cope with the cognitive dissonance rather than face the fact that he's stupid and got had. Something about how there must be some other way to reconcile it with the midnight sun. Anyways.
In other words, people who are right don't have to rebut the arguments of conspiracy theorists because it doesn't matter. The conspiracy theorists will simply invent a new reason why their beliefs, upon which their entire self identity is built, are able to persist.
The problem is that rules need to be viewpoint neutral to be fair and effective. If we allow authority to pick approved opinions, we end up with this incoherent bullshit. One year you can't mention anything contrary to the CDC and the next you're not allowed to talk about Palestine, only because the dominant political parties switched places. If you tolerate this kind of rule making because you believe your opinions are correct, be ready to be oppressed when the next administration decides they hate you.
Banning these people is a shortcut for making it real easy for the intended audience of the website to block them. This is a fundamental part of the first amendment and enables the platform to shape its commercial offering to fit its business model.
You seem to have confused online social medial platforms with common carriers which is an extremely popular error lately.
No one is confused about the correct application of law, this is clearly an argument about principles as they apply to de-facto corporate controlled commons. Google is not the state, but essentially controls one of the few means of self publishing. It's not unlike company towns, and civil liberties. Just because it's not the state doesn't make it not an infringement.
I’d be interested in a citation for the proposition “social media is like a company town,” but I’m afraid if I promised to wait for one I might be here a while. The best I can do is direct you back to Marsh v. Alabama.
What makes it not an infringement is not that Facebook is not the state; it’s that Facebook does not encompass the traditional function of the municipality. The state action doctrine does not apply.
I guess it is more like being hard prove a negative. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. But it is also difficult to prove vaccines cannot cause autism. The Anti-Vaxxers use this loophole to spread their beliefs.
How is that difficult though? Just do a study comparing vaccinated cohort to unvaccinated cohort and show that the unvaccinated cohort has a statistically similar rate of autism.
12. Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I, Li J, Waight PA. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999; 353(9169): 2026-9.
13. Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. BMJ 2002; 324(7334): 393-6.
14. Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine 2001; 19(27): 3632-5.
15. Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(19): 1477-82.
16. Smeeth L, Cook C, Fombonne E, Heavey L, Rodrigues LC, Smith PG, Hall AJ. MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study. Lancet 2004; 364(9438): 963-9.
17. Makela A, Nuorti JP, Peltola H. Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Pediatrics 2002; 110(5): 957-63.
18. Jain A, Marshall J, Buikema A, Bancroft T, Kelly JP, Newschaffer CJ. Autism occurrence by MMR vaccine status among US children with older siblings with and without autism. JAMA 2015; 313(15): 1534-40.
19. Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N. Early exposure to the combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines and risk of autism spectrum disorder. Vaccine 2015; 33(21): 2511-6.
20. Hviid A, Hansen JV, Frisch M, Melbye M. Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort StudyMeasles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism. 2019.
21. Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA 2003; 290(13): 1763-6.
22. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, Lieu TA, Rhodes PH, Black SB, Shinefield H, Chen RT. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 2003; 112(5): 1039-48.
23. Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics 2004; 114(3): 584-91.
24. Croen LA, Matevia M, Yoshida CK, Grether JK. Maternal Rh D status, anti-D immune globulin exposure during pregnancy, and risk of autism spectrum disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199(3): 234.e1-6.
25. Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Croen LA, Hinrichsen VL, Marcy M, Robertson A, Eriksen E, Lewis E, Bernal P, Shay D, Davis RL, DeStefano F. Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism. Pediatrics 2010; 126(4): 656-64.
26. Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N. The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia. Vaccine 2012; 30(28): 4292-8.
27. DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. J Pediatr 2013; 163(2): 561-7.
The purpose isn't to protect the public, the purpose is to unlock the ban-hammer, with the full knowledge that it can be weaponized in case of political emergency (see the Hunter's Laptop story).
Why should people be banned for these? I don’t agree with either group, generally, but I don’t really see the harm either?
If the election and vaccines are so air tight, why doesn’t anyone just publish a piece tearing down the top N counterarguments? There are a few that aren’t obviously stupid and would require more research for any random person to be sure they are wrong, but I haven’t seen anyone publish solid deconstruction pieces on them. I don’t really know why, though.
It seems like it has been moralized and the people who are “right” don’t have to actually rebut arguments against their position because they are so right? I don’t get it.