In the statement from the AMA mods, they stated that if Reddit wanted to continue providing that sort of celebrity outreach that they had been doing for free, they should hire a liaison for that.
Before the mods took that responsibility on for themselves, Victoria (/u/chooter on Reddit) used to be that person.
Victoria was able to pull in some big names for AMAs, and she was good at identifying good/interesting questions and helping with submitting responses. Reddit unceremoniously fired her one day and the quality of celebrity AMAs dropped significantly after that.
I just had a good laugh at myself because rampart is so non-existent in my mind, that I had to Google what the hell you were talking about.
So Woody Harrelson is forever famous for the worst AMA ever because he aggressively plugged a movie that must’ve been so bad and irrelevant that I have no idea what people are talking about when they reference it today.
Lol I remember someone in that thread asking Woody if he remembered taking a high school girl to her prom and knocking her up. And the social media manager faking Woody’s involvement just answering “can we stick to the movie?”
Yeah the entire AMA was a dumpster fire, but that was when things really devolved. It quickly got upvoted to the top, and it refused to die. Every single comment he made was quickly bombed with “why haven’t you answered that prom question yet” responses.
What Reddit fails to understand with their decades of industry experience and 2k employees is that without their users, they don’t have a product. Moderators work for free. Creators work for free. These people didn’t do it for Reddit. They did it for you and me.
And then like three developers in their spare time ate their lunch.
I think you accidentally responded to the wrong comment. I assume you meant to respond to the comment below asking whether spez was with Reddit since the beginning.
It looks like it's back, but are they really? One of the posts from the last 12 hours is "Thanks, I hate the new Sonic" with a still from the movie before they reworked it. I smell a repost bot in action to make it look like there's more traffic...
Are Swartz and Ohanian still around? Are they all trying to cash in?
I can understand wanting to get retirement money out of your long-term project, but we're not obliged to stick around and assist in the degradation of a once-great platform.
It’s worse than that, when this all started I had a look at their Wikipedia entry. They have 2000 employees across 5 locations. What in the ever loving Christ are they all doing if that app is the best they can do?
Most of them are either admins (read: global moderators to enforce site wide policy) and “community builders” that spam subreddits with reposts and junk to boost activity. Some of that spam was malicious bots of course, but a lot was also from reddit themselves. That’s why the site appears as active as it is with so many content creators leaving.
I mean what do you think they were doing for all those years? I still remember when r/subredditsimulator would frequently pop up on the front page because of some of the ridiculous and funny things the AI language models would post. But eventually over time as they learned to mimic typical user posts, it got to a point where it was a clone of every other sub on the site and everyone sort of forgot about it. So I honestly would not doubt for a second that they’ve spread them out to numerous subs and are using them as content creators to try and keep subs appearing active.
This sounds really dumb, but the “activity” is primarily what draws new users and keeps existing ones. The primary complaint/desire of new Lemmy users is more/sustained activity on the platform. That’s also what keeps people using Twitter and other SM platforms.
For a company approaching an IPO, increasing amd sustaining activity from real users is maybe the second most important thing to do, second only to showing a clear route to monetization. It doesnt surprise me their team may be mostly admin and “community builders”, but it does surprise me that they’d risk loosing major contributors and moderators without a clear replacement.
However, they do understand that the APIcalypse will make their financial figures look great, and that’s what actually matters in the coming IPO. They also understand that these actions will hurt the site and that the fallout will come at a notable delay. However, by the time it’s clear the site has only a few months to live, the previous owners have already taken the money and left. At that point, it’s a problem for the new owners. Let them figure out how to fix a sinking ship.
The API pricing was a tool to kill the apps, because Reddit is not able to milk ad money from those users. Now that most of the 3rd party apps are dead and most subs are open, users have no choice but to be exposed to adds. That’s where the real money is.
Context didn’t help you, I also presumed you supported X. Just use tone indicators to avoid any confusion. it’s two characters for “/s”. Little cringe todo initially but it helps ppl and avoids confusion.
While I agree, no one should be behind this shit company, it’s quite a standard thing to do.
Literally every social media platform has the ability to reset a users username so they can free it up. It happens all the time.
Are you famous enough? Cool, contact any company about taking over the username “Jake” and they’ll give you it. Doesn’t matter that the other dudes name is Jake. Doesn’t matter they had it first. Doesn’t matter that it isn’t a trademarked name.
It's not really that shitty in context with Musk's everyday doings. I'm honestly not surprised at all.
If this was the worst of him, I'd be able to handle it (even though it indeed is a shitty thing to do and devalues Twitter handles [which is imo actually a good thing]).
Speaking of his everyday doings. Has anyone investigated all those underage illegal migrant children he has in his bathroom shower? Or was that just a rumor started on “the app formerly known as twitter”?
Reddit was antagonistic when they removed moderators from subreddits, banned their accounts, and did everything else they possibly could to quell the protests. The behavior they're exhibiting to this day isn't new.
This article kind of misses the forest for the trees. While I agree with many of the author's points, that's not why the #TwitterMigration failed. It failed because Twitter/Mastodon isn't really a social networking site, and Mastodon didn't provide the same service that Twitter does. At its core, Twitter is about small numbers of (usually famous or important) users communicating with large audiences of followers. #TwitterMigration failed because not enough of those famous and important people moved from Twitter to Mastodon, so the average user had no content they cared to read. Seeing posts from your friends about what they had for dinner last night is all well and good, but the stuff people actually want to see is famous person A throwing shade at famous person B while famous person C talks about the new movie they're in and important organization D posts a warning about severe weather in the area. You don't go to Twitter to have discussions, you go to Twitter to get news and gossip direct from the source.
In contrast, sites like Reddit and kBin/Lemmy are about having group conversations around a topic. Interacting with famous people is neat but not the point. Think of Reddit/kBin/Lemmy as random conversations at a party whereas Twitter/Mastodon is some random person on the corner shouting to a crowd from a soapbox. #RedditMigration has a much better chance of succeeding simply because the purpose of the site is different. As long as enough people move to kBin/Lemmy to have meaningful conversations (aka content), it will have succeeded.
The famous people did move over for certain specific groups; app developers are pretty much all on Mastodon now, the WWDC chatter / visionOS experimentation / etc is way more active on there than on Twitter. (Of course if any group ought to be uniquely pissed off at both Twitter and Reddit, it’s app developers)
I agree with this, except many of the most followed users on Twitter are being mirrored on Mastodon. For lurkers like me, that scratches the itch just fine
not enough of those famous and important people moved from Twitter to Mastodon
This is the reason I'm still using Twitter. I use Twitter not to tweet about what I did, but to get news from people I follow.
Tech people can move to Mastodon because their circles are moving, but not with common people.
For me, personally, Mastodon is like empty void. No one to follow and I can't interact with people who share same interests because they only exist on Twitter (since the "famous people" isn't moving from Twitter)
Reddit migration will succeed for some communities and fail for others. Generic subs can live on with new mods and new subscribers. They're not much different from FB or Twitter. Just mindless content to feed that infinite scroll.
Specialized subs where the community as a whole (or a majority at least) decides to move to a new home will move (or have moved already), because for those the community is what matters, not the venue.
%100 this. I have Mastodon and use it sparingly because I found a good community but I still find myself going back to Twitter because most of the people I follow on Twitter haven't moved and most of the people I follow on Twitter are celebrities or influencers. The only way a #twittermigration will work is if most of the influencers and celebrities move off the platform as that's the content most regular users go for. With Reddit however we just need people that create good content to move, the lurkers will follow the content regardless of how "complicated" the platform is. The reddit lurkers won't stay on Reddit if there isn't any quality content being posted there, they may be satiated with reposts for a while but eventually they will leave and go looking for the content and if that content is on Kbin/Lemmy they will come here.
That's a pretty good analogy, only he would have to specify that he still considers all women to be whores in his bio to be completely accurate.
Honestly though, it's desperate. I don't even want to know what's become of Accidental Renaissance 'Under New Management', I'm glad the original team are here though
Better to use uBlock Origin (which you should use anyway), and just enable the “Block outsider intrusion into lan” filter list, as pointed out by ch1cken. - Thanks!
This was the first thing I assumed would happen when they announced the API pricing. A lot of spam prevention and deletion (hell, a lot of moderation period) is done by bots that use the API, made by people that likely can’t pay the new exorbitant fees to keep those going.
Most bots actually would continue working, the free API allows for 100 requests a minute which for most is enough, and they have been manually adding exemptions for moderation bots that need more. The question is if the creators are willing to continue supporting them, for free, in the future. Plenty understandably do not.
Also currently being a moderator (of any subreddit) allows you to bypass both the the rate limit and NSFW sub ban - which itself seems to be a manual list of mostly porn subs, as most of the subs that are nsfw as a protest still work so it isn't a blanket ban.
@JohnEdwa The bots should not even hit the limit, otherwise its a hint for any anti-bot detection. Just create lot of small bots staying low on threshold to be detected. Together with an AI, then the missing bot detection utility and some missing moderators, Reddit should become a bigger pile than it is already.
It was a great investment for the people on the top of the pyramid. So it worked as it was supposed to. Suck it up and learn your lesson, idiots. It wasn’t for lack of warning.
It’s great to have additional studies confirming this! But this is also what the trans community has been saying for years. Please just listen to us when it comes to our own bodies 🥲
But isn’t this study exactly about asking trans folks how they feel about their top surgery? Not doing a study however would be ignoring the ones who didn’t feel satisfied with their surgery, and now those voices are included as well. They’re in the minority as expected, but at least now we have some sort of statistical validation for it as well
I was more referring to the common knowledge among the trans community that already knew this information prior to any studies. If you’re trans and in the community this is a “well no shit” kind of study. We’ve been telling it to cis people for years but the refusal to listen to that was palpable. That’s why I said it’s great to have additional studies to point to if they don’t want to listen to the trans community themselves, they can maybe listen to this study.
We’ve been telling it to cis people for years but the refusal to listen to that was palpable.
Here's a Sartre quote about bigotry/fascists that you may find useful:
“Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
I’m aware, I’m not talking about those extremists however. I’m talking about the people who are unsure and potential allies. Yes, they still exist in 2023. I convinced one in my family just this past month after being patient and explaining concepts and terms. That’s the scenario these studies can be very helpful.
Even if it seems to be common sense to those inside the community, there is something to be said about getting actual data on the subject so that those outside the community at least have a touchstone for the reality those on the inside experience, because propagandists are working very hard to muddy the waters on this point and points like this one in particular. It might be a “no shit Sherlock” moment to you, but to people like my Fox News watching extended family, this study is something that contradicts their current mental model of the situation, and something that I am glad I have in my quiver when they start talking about the subject to me.
I’m not sure if it was your intention or you didn’t read the second half of my comment but you essentially repeated the point I just made, therefore, yes I agree.
What’s this, a civil discussion on the internet? Well, I never… You’re both so wholesome, if I were still on Reddit and seeing this, you’d both get a badge each
Just to be clear, a little googling around about the drugs in question seems to indicate major use of Ceftriaxone (the front line antibiotic for gonorrhea) and its analogues in factory farming.
Zoetis says ceftiofur is safe to use as directed. “The use of ceftiofur continues to be appropriate when used according to the label directions in those animals that are in at-risk situations,” said Scott Brown, vice president of global therapeutics research at Zoetis.
The stakes are especially high because the drug is part of a crucial class of antibiotics called cephalosporins. The class includes ceftriaxone, a drug that’s vital to treating pneumonia, meningitis and salmonella infections in children, according to the FDA. The use of one type of cephalosporin can compromise the effectiveness of others in the same class.
“There is a very clear link between ceftiofur use and ceftriaxone resistance,” said Paul Fey, a professor of microbiology at University of Nebraska Medical Center. “We know that ceftiofur-resistant salmonella are clearly ceftriaxone-resistant.”
So what’s really distressing here to me is that this likely isn’t even from human overuse, and this affects diseases other than just gonorrhea.
Personal Note: This is not meant to single out China for anything, antibiotic use is out of control for farmers all over the planet. This was just one of the first results that came up for “ceftriaxone farming.”
The use of 20 antibiotics was reported, with oxytetracycline, penicillin, amoxicillin, cefoperazone, norfloxacin, ceftriaxone, ofloxacin, cefradine, chloramphenicol and sulfadiazine ranking in the top 10 as reported by 213 (52.7%), 182 (45.1%), 156 (38.6%), 82 (20.3%), 78 (19.3%), 75 (18.6%), 73 (18.1%), 64 (15.8%), 40 (9.9%) and 39 (9.6%) of the 404 surveyed farmers, respectively (Table 13). These antibiotics were the most commonly used ones by the surveyed farmers in pig rearing. The other 10 antibiotics used are also presented in Table 13. We sorted the 20 antibiotics into nine different classes based on their chemical structures. Table 14 presents the nine classes of antibiotics with the class of penicillin ranking the first (mentioned by 338 farmers), followed by tetracyclines (mentioned by 223 farmers).
It’s really distressing how factory farming is making a huge impact on the ability of antibiotics to continue to be effective.
Personal Note: This is not meant to single out China for anything
We should. China and India are the worst culprits when it comes to prophylactic use of antibiotics for livestock (and reportedly humans). The practise is strictly controlled in OECD nations for this exact reason.
This absolutely cracked me up because I’ve actually been in that scenario. Granted, it was more about the can that I didn’t have a means to open than the beans, but still
The big exam comes around, you show up with your pencil and calculator. Nope. Can of beans. Sorry sir, once you’ve sat for the test there’s no leaving. Good luck. 80 college students pounding it against the floor at once.
despite not knowing what it means, in this context, it means whatever affords me the chance to nitpick. in essence, despite lacking any authority to make such a decision, and the absence of any motivation to the contrary, i define words how i like. the result is that, despite my efforts, my arguments are incoherent. however, in lieu of better alternatives, despite, which heretofore had usually be defined such that it always was in reference to spiting a particular thing.
100% this. For everyone that takes their online privacy and freedom very seriously, there are literal millions of others who couldn't give less of a fuck and proudly parrot the "if you have nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" bullshit, like they're some enlightened cunt atop their own tower who conveniently ignores the consequences of every company that experiences a major data breach.
These people are the reason the internet has devolved as hard as it has, and it makes me sick to know there's nothing that can be done to stop things from only getting worse - the masses enable the surveillance capitalist machine, and what's worse is that they've become convinced they need it to survive. Meta pushing their fucking nose into places it isn't welcome, like the fediverse, just further proved it to me. These big tech firms will not stop until they own a piece of every free region of the internet, and they know that no matter how vocal their opponents are, that the lobotomized fuckwits that make up the bulk of their userbase will just lap up anything they put out.
Not to sound like a naïve, brain dead optimist but maybe this is our chance to draw our line in the sand. If Threads falls on its face, it will likely serve as precedence for other companies who think they can use the fediverse for their own gain, no?
As Louis Rossmann says, "never go to war with the internet because you will lose". I'd like to think that the people who make that quote possible are all migrating or have migrated to the fediverse.
This is about attempts to stop folks from spreading provably wrong info online that's killing people. It's like protecting the free speech of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The headline is also overstated. Its a preliminary injunction and of course its from a Trump nominee.
But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits on the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
But if the government can pressure platforms to remove provably false information that is actively killing people, it will have a chilling effect on my constitutional freedom to lie to people. Won't somebody please think of the grifters and anti-sciencers?
In a land where "lies" are suppressed, he who claims to know the truth is king. The sentiment of suppressing lies is perhaps rightous, but who determines the truth? It damn well wasn't scientists during the pandemic.
Edit: hell, even Zuck himself said he was told to censor true information.
If you actually listened to scientists during the pandemic, or read papers - you would you know that the main theme was "there is lots of stuff we don't know, or are unsure about". Given that, however - there needed to be public health guidance based on the best evidence and probablitlities at the time.
On the other side, there were people spouting, unsourced, unsupported, nonsensical bullshit that would directly contribute to people killing themselves.
They were literally just making up arbitrary rules that had nothing to do with science, and saying it WAS based on science. Meanwhile the then director of the CDC said we should investigate if the virus came from a lab as well as if it had a natural origin, and was forcibly sidelined as a result. Don't even try to say they were following the science.
Edit: Also, if you're not even sure what the truth is, what gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?
They were literally just making up arbitrary rules that had nothing to do with science, and saying it WAS based on science.
Give me a solid example of the "they" in this case, the rule in question and the date that that the rule was imposed.
Meanwhile the then director of the CDC said we should investigate if the virus came from a lab as well as if it had a natural origin, and was forced to resign as a result.
Are you talking about Rochelle Walensky? If so, there are many possible reasons why she decided to resign, but I can't find a single source saying it was because she said there should be an investigation into Covid's source.
Edit: Ah, you are talking about Robert R. Redfield. So from what I can tell, his downfall was that he wasn't being scientific - he stated that the he thought it most likely that it was a lab-leak, and that certainly didn't win him any friends because the assertions he made weren't well supported. But was he "forced to resign because of that" - looking at the coverage from back then, he was under fire for multiple reasons, not just that. I don't think we can say that was the sole or even main reason for his departure.
Also, if you're not even sure what the truth is, what gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?
Because the process of science (especially in fast-moving situations) is all about producing increasingly accurate pictures of the truth. Scientists are highly resistant to characterising something as the truth - there often more to explore. You can absolutely have scientists with different opinions - but they will be looking at evidence, not just making stuff up.
You ask
What gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?
The silencing isn't being done by scientists, its being done by public health officials and that is somewhat different,. Public health officials take the best evidence as presented by scientific consensus and have to create messaging designed to minimise the number of deaths and maximise wellbeing. If the scientific consensus is that vaccination is safe and effective - that messaging will save millions of lives. Some Russian bot factory amplying a ludicrous idea like "the vaccines will alter your DNA or make you infertile" is specifically designed to kill people.
I wholeheartedly disagree, and that's okay. What I think we CAN agree on is that leading experts (like the director of the CDC) shouldn't be silenced for suggesting we investigate the possibility of a lab leak, which is actually what happened.
So if any one wants, I’m running a sale on Inverpectin.
For the low price of 69.69, you could get a months supply- but wait, there’s more. If you order in the next 30 seconds, I’ll give you a second months supply free- up to six months when you buy six! That’s a years worth of protection from Covick!
(Please note the evil FDA and CDC are saying inverpectin doesn’t do what I say it does, and is insisting Inveepeftin caused man-boob development. It’s all lied! I swear!)
Almost all those things haven't been proven true or accepted by most experts. Stop lying.
Asking questions is fine to inform yourself. Asking questions to purposely push a narrative isn't
I don’t trust you that the video contains the content you claim it does. apparently you have this information, but are refusing to share it with people, so how lazy are you?
He details around the 1:10 minute mark about how he was sidelined (which I incorrectly interpreted to mean he had been forced to resign) for suggesting that both lab leak and natural origin theories should be investigated. Apparently he was simply left out of the discussion entirely after sharing his position, and resigned later, but I haven't actually been able to find any details or the exact reasoning behind his exit from the CDC.
That being said, him being sidelined is, in my opinion, still extremely concerning. It's pretty clear to me that him disagreeing with Fauci lead to him being pushed out, but there doesn't seem to be any info anywhere on the subject.
(which I incorrectly interpreted to mean he had been forced to resign)
You do realize that’s why most people are arguing with you, right? Because you made a false claim that you couldn’t back up while repeatedly claiming you've proven it to be true by posting a link to an article that doesn’t say what you claim it says (which is the very definition of “unscientific”)?
My main point was that the Whitehouse shouldn't be allowed to censor people (via the FBI) by calling certain information "misinformation" (especially when they had little to no evidence to support their own narrative) by forcing social media platforms to carry out said cencorship (or really in any way in all honesty).
The current administration came up with a narrative, and stifled any and all debate, including that of the then CDC director who they subsequently sidelined simply for saying we should investigate both possibilities on the origins of the virus.
And you’re still wrong! There is no evidence that the government forced social media companies to do anything, and the article you provided doesn’t even make the claim that anyone was forced to do anything.
I didn't say that article claimed that. This information is already known, and it's why there is a case in the first place. The Twitter files came out and corroborated that it had been going on for quite a while.
Who gives a shit, frankly. The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.
Sorry I didn't flesh it out.. Falsely yelling "fire" is not inherently illegal unless someone gets injured as a result. Millions of people died due to vaccine misinformation spread on social media.
But the speech is still legal and protected. Maybe there should be more restrictions about these things, but that’s a case that should be argued in public and implemented the official way. Personally I think not, and instead we should be focusing on restricting the things that allow those ridiculous people making false claims to find the other ridiculous people that believe them.
Just imagine what Trump could have done during the worst of COVID with the power to restrict speech deemed untrue in the dark and without oversight.
This is extremely good news for foreign state-run disinformation farms, or domestic terrorists who want to spread disinformation or panic. "Go for it".
Do you extend the same to lies or threats? If I claimed your computer is full of CP would you still support me?
I personally think this is a brain-dead approach akin to the many “zero tolerance” laws that only exist to remove thought from the equation. “Yes Billy, you may not have actually thrown any punches but we’re suspending you from school for getting beat up by that bully because you were a participant in the fight.”
The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.
What else is there to take from this? Sounds like the typical “unlimited free speech” argument that we’ve all heard before.
If you want to argue about the law, the legality of this action has yet to be determined, so I’m assuming you must be in support of it, no? What is your stance if you think there’s confusion on my part about what that may be.
Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?
Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?
Because they’re laws the we have as a society agreed upon and put into place. Pretty simple stuff. I do not understand how thinking that the law should be followed is such a wild idea.
If we want vaccine misinformation to be illegal, we should pass a law. Otherwise, the first amendment stands. What’s so weird about that?
Nobody is "begrudgingly" accepting scientific results. But you want to tell that story, right? You're looking for an "us vs. them" situation, but that's not how science works.
Also, I think some of your facts are not actually facts.
Finally, a question itself is not "anti-science". How could it be? However, if you're using a question as a smokescreen to confuse readers or viewers to push your selfish political agenda, that would be shady politics, and it would have nothing to do with science at all.
What simple disagreement are you referring to exactly? Everything you’ve mentioned has been pretty clear disinformation that lead to people dying not simple disagreements.
Yeah okay, bud. You’re obviously trying to spread your own disinformation now as if we can’t see a written record of your comments elsewhere in this post.
I just want to point out that your very first question is irrelevant to the rest. Whereever it originated, we needed to stop the spread but propagandists got hold of people through paranoia and pushed them to behave in ways that INCREASED the spread, and it started with stuff like the first question.
Exactly! We're just asking questions! Like how many shots does it take to induce fetal-alcohol syndrom? Because your mom DEFINITELY knows the answer. And when will these WOKE folks (hehe, rhyme time) stop being so persistant with their knowledge and science and let us just say the stupid shit we think of on the spot? Also, why are you allowed to speak if there is a god? The world may never know, but penis. (( | )) B:::::::::D---~~~ (GET IT? BUTT PENIS!) i'M jUsT aSkInG QuEsTiOnS!
Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
Yes. It would be accurate to say that it is possible that the Covid originated in a lab in China, but the evidence is mixed and it is certainly not provided.
Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
No idea, because I don't know who you claimed to say it, when they said it or in which county
Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
Yes - because it's much too simplistic. Depending on the design of the mask, the material and how it was warn cloth masks certainly had an effect on reducing infection - in particular infected mask wearers are less likely to infect others
Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
No - and questions about long-term efficacy were front and centre of studies into how long (for example) vaccines shots lasted. The point was that even short - term efficacy was pretty useful.
Was it antiscience to question the long term side effects of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
No. It's absolutely scientific to ask questions about it. It is is anti-science tio make stuff up about probable long-term effects when the mechanism of the drug are pretty well understood.
At one point or another every one of those questions was considered antiscience and is now begrudgingly accepted by the experts.
Some of them are "anti-science", some aren't. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make, other than "Experts bad"
That was the data we had at the time, yes. New data can mean new stances, and that's okay. But notice the order of operations there; new data, then new stance. Not the other way around.
They had data showing otherwise. They were silenced. I'll keep bringing this up, but the director of the CDC at the time said there was significant evidence to investigate the lab leak theory, but was forcibly sidelined. They seem to have gotten your model backwards. This wasn't the only time it happened, but people will keep crying "sources" since they know it's now difficult to find information that was removed from journal sites, etc.
"Dr Redfield, who led the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the outbreak began in 2020, was an early proponent of the lab leak theory.
He told the House select subcommittee, formed by the new Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, it was "not scientifically plausible" to him that the virus had natural origins.
He claimed he was "sidelined" at the beginning of the pandemic and excluded from meetings as his views were not in line with other major scientists like Dr Fauci, the de-facto face of the US pandemic response."
There is no evidence to support your stance that this dude was sidelined because of his views. All you have is his claim that they sidelined him for his views.
If you're going to speak to me that way I will not be responding. You've refused to read the story yourself, and cannot be swayed from your opinion. You argue in bad faith, and simply aren't following logic with your responses. I hope you have a good day.
Have a good one friend. "It's easier to mislead someone than it is to show them they've been mislead." If you really believe the director of the CDC was a crackpot conspiracy theorist, then we have no further discussion.
You couldn't know they didn't have data if they didn't have the ability to present it. Once censored, it's impossible to tell what media is, that's the point of censorship.
You can't know if what was censored was false information, if you don't have the data on what was said.
Questioning is the heart and soul of science. Doubting included.
To censor doubt is a demand for agreement, and an intimidation of dissent.
People posting pro horse-medicine posts on social media aren't ever going to be doing anything close to "science".
And this romantic concept of "questioning is the heart and soul of science" is just a banal platitude. Rigorous testing and record keeping is the heart and soul of science. Latching on to conspiracy theories is not even tangentially related to science.
You've got to do your homework. This has already been proven to be a false narrative set up by MSNBC and CNN (and their subsidiaries). You're behind. Ivermectin has been prescribed to humans for decades.
But not for coronaviruses. For parasites. And not in the doses that are intended for animals, but for humans. And not purchased from a farm supply store, but through a pharmacy.
That's not what I said though. They spread a lie by saying it was only for horses, and were never silenced or corrected. They were allowed to lie. "Rules for thee, but not rules for me."
I'd like a verified source showing this was actually occurring at any sort of large scale. Assuming you have it, does that make it okay to suggest Ivermectin (the drug) is only for horses like the media did? Is lying okay when it's done to save lives? I'm just curious.
That story uses only anecdotal, non-scientifically recorded data. 50 - 60 calls a day simply to ask about it, and one or two cases of people actually using it. This same story claims people were drinking hand sanitizer, I guess we need to start lying about that as well.
"Poison centers are still responding to events related to COVID-19," said Julie Weber, president of the American Association of Poison Control Centers and director of the Missouri Poison Center. "On average, we are getting over 40 to 50 calls per day in addition to what we would normally get pre-pandemic."
Unless you are saying the president of Missouri's Poison Center is lying, then this is still substantive.
And more than what you have provided so far. Can't claim it is lie either without evidence.
They don't even say the 50-60 calls they are getting are just for Ivermectin, just that they're related to COVID. Why do you think they worded it that way, to be misleading maybe?
I'll not be discussing with you further. Why would I? You are literally just repeating that I didn't read the article, and have made no claims against what I said. I think we should censor YOU since I know I read it but you keep claiming I didn't, which could be classified as misinformation.
Firstly, you saying I'm admitting that I'm wrong is arguing in bad faith by definition, as I never said that. Quote the part of the article you're talking about specifically, and I'll refute that, that way I'll be forced to read it. Also, ciritizing me for repeating myself is ironic considering you keep repeating yourself.
You suspiciously left out all the context of the discussion. I can only imagine why you'd do this. Haha
Horse dewormer was mentioned because that's what the maga cultists were using, because (sane) doctors wouldn't prescribe it to humans for a coronavirus.
You agree that Ivermectin isn't for coronavirus, right? Right?
There has been little to no research allowed that might prove otherwise, but some countries (that were denied access to the vaccine for profit reasons) seemed to have great success using it. That being said, calling it a horse dewormer within context is literally just lying. I'm actually giving them a chance when I leave out said context.
We're not talking about that. You keep trying to change my argument to saying that the virus leaked from a lab; I'm not supporting that. I'm saying the DIRECTOR OF THE CDC was sidelined because he believed there was enough evidence not to rule it out, which is what the narrative was at the time and WHY he was sidelined. We may never know, because the research isn't being done.
There has been little to no research allowed that might prove otherwise, but some countries (that were denied access to the vaccine for profit reasons) seemed to have great success using it.
The "it" they were using is clearly horse dewormer. Not sidelined CDC directors.
Also, just putting this out there. You can see who upvotes and downvotes any given comment.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting, Ivermectin could be used as both, but countries that were using it had been prescribing it to humans for quite a while, so I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
I find that it is often the case that people who say "do your homework/research" (wrt science/news) were the very same students who wouldn't do their homework.
People making claims that “injecting bleach will cure COVID,” “COVID is a hoax,” or “the vaccine contains nanobots to control us!” aren’t questioning anything. They’re making claims that are false and dangerous, leading to needless deaths. Quit trying to act like the COVID conspiracy theorists were simply asking questions in good faith rather that intentionally spreading disinformation in order to politicize a virus.
Well at least you can agree that it’s all disinformation. You’re right it isn’t illegal which is why nobody wound up in jail for spreading it.
I also see you quickly abandoned your stance that it’s “simply people asking questions” rather than something much more malicious and damaging to society.
There was a time I would believe you whole heartedly.
I despise book bans.
I see people try to censor other people's very existence.
I hate China's authoritarian laws.
I wish to strive to allow as much free speech and liberty reasonably possible.
Then COVID happened. Misinformation, narrative pushing, and just plain lying. My grandma died from the virus in a hospital not consistently wearing masks or even checking for it in the first place. A hospital wear fox news plays abound and nurses proudly talk about their "knowing" of what actually is happening.
This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forcibly sidelined after sharing his position), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.
Many people assume the rule traces to “some old studies” on the flu, which found droplets won’t travel further than six feet, Gottlieb said—though research has since shown that Covid-19 can be spread through aerosols, which have the potential to travel many times further than droplets.
You didn't claim otherwise to social distancing. And this has to do with further research giving us better understanding.
Especially with people knew with confidence at the time. With everything being hectic.
I said that our government (US if that wasn't clear) wasn't suggesting solutions to the pandemic solely based on science in many cases. The social distancing mandate was an example of that. Criticism of this (the social distancing/masking solutions, etc.) was silenced and categorized as misinformation. So yes, I did say exactly that here:
"They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true?"
This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forced to resign), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.
I said that our government (US if that wasn't clear) wasn't suggesting solutions to the pandemic solely based on science in many cases.
No you didn't. Liar
And you haven't proven or shown that "They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew."
I literally copied and pasted my own comment; I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. "They" are the "Whitehouse" (via the FBI) that literally are what the trial of the post on which we're having this discussion were accused of; so yes, that's exactly what I said. They (the FBI/"Whitehouse") are on trial for influencing what should be sensored on social media as well as what information could be released during document requests to journalists. This included (based on the Twitter files) comments criticizing measures mandated by the government, including masking and social distancing requirements along with quarantine mandates.
My first article simply gave an example of one part of the mandates that weren't based on science with more stories to come once I can use an actual PC. It wasn't supposed to be my be-all-end-all source for everything I posited.
You call it wasting time, I call it protecting our freedom of speech, including yours. If you can't follow what I'm saying I'm sure other people can and will. The article on the OP is literally accusing the FBI under Biden of doing these things, and have given evidence showing as much, so I didn't feel the need to give evidence of this.
You don't care about anything beyond pushing your own narrative.
You keep jumping around to different claims, with no sources backing them up for what you said.
You claim to be protecting freedom of speech, but you aren't. You are only protecting bad faith actors, bots, and liars.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and when it come to the health and safety of the public somethings have to take priority. Necessary things from what I have seen.
And this case is being appealed.
Biden admin’s likely appeal
Assuming the Biden administration appeals Doughty's ruling on the preliminary injunction, the government would likely make arguments similar to what it wrote in a May 2023 filing. There is a high legal bar for ruling that "significant encouragement" would "convert private conduct into state action," the administration argued.
"Since 2017, Executive Branch agencies and officials have promoted authoritative information or expressed concerns with the spread of misinformation," but "consistently recognized social media companies' authority over their platforms," Department of Justice lawyers wrote.
I disagree, and that should be okay. I shouldn't be censored for doing so. I shouldn't be put on a list of concerning individuals like the FBI has been proven to be doing as a result of the Twitter files. Seriously if you'd just read up on it your eyes would be opened. Our current (and past) leadership along with corporate elites are trying to scare you from "bad actors" in order that you give up your freedom. This allows them to stay in power.
I'm not "jumping around" on any claims I have made. All claims I have made are verifiable, and have followed logically throughout this discussion. I have backed up some of them with sources (time permitting) which you of course have disputed. If you take issue with any of my claims, be specific. I'm happy to provide sources when I have the time.
Also, of course they're going to appeal. Why would they give up on being able to censor us now?
Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
YES, there was little evidence AND there still isn't conclusive evidence that it was. They just used it as a reason to be racist toward Asian (and it did provably increase hate crime toward Asian people).
Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
YES, if people would have actually isolated, we would have had far fewer cases shortly after.
Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
YES, they are still effective and far better than not wearing a mask at all.
Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy/long term side effects (I'm combining 2 questions here) of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
YES, the vaccine was not given to people widespread until after thorough testing. It's fact that almost any vaccine side effect will occur within the first few weeks of it being administered. There was also information and testing about the efficacy before it was widely distributed.
People questioning this stuff were given the answers by scientists, specialists, people with knowledge, and they outright denied the truth of the data. It's one thing to question, it's another thing to yell questions into the void and pretend you don't hear the answers.
Agreed. But I wouldn't say it's overstated; it's misleading. It's largely a quote from the judge, who may be an idiot, but they said what they said. "Trump-appointed judge rules that Biden Administration went too Far in Preventing Medical Misinformation," is wonky but more accurate.
TLDR: not worth reading the article, it’s just a long list of third party apps that are no longer free anymore, totally ignoring matters such as their usage stats and more importantly the content itself that is now flat-out missing from Reddit. Go to any old thread and you’ll see the “this content has been removed by” (whichever of the automated software to remove posts was used in that case) messages.
Honestly it reads like a shill to promote Reddit as in “hey, all that fuss was for nothing - you should totally come back now”. It got fairly obvious even at the start when it said that the protests lasts (edit: lasted) for “weeks” - not the more truthful “months”, not “permanent changes”, but the minimum amount they could halfway reasonably get away with stating.
I am biased, and this article is far more so, and less forgivably so bc mine is a personal opinion while this is touted as “news”.
Valid, but from a truth-in-reporting standpoint, those protests went on for MONTHS and MONTHS. Which I suppose could technically be reported as “weeks”, but they could also be reported as “femtoseconds” and yet… seems to lose accuracy that way? :-P
And like, I understand that the title of the article means that it is focusing narrowly on third-party apps not the state of Reddit as a whole, but (1) the scope still includes anything that it does choose to say, e.g. how long those protests lasted, and (2) it does not mention anywhere how e.g. third-party apps compare to the official Reddit app, or what their market share is with respect to one another, which seems the two most relevant questions of all?!
Continuing on, a third question could be: do people like those apps? From the comments even in the article, it seems not… but without usage stats, even an app used by a single person counts the same as e.g. the former Apollo.
i.e., How DOES the third-party app market look nowadays, after the protests? After reading this article, I still have no idea whatsoever… All I know is that there is a list of apps, which sounds like a singular detail devoid of any context that Reddit would very much like us to know, rather than anything that I would actually care about knowing in order to get a better picture of the situation as a whole.
Some subs did not protest at all. Some users even went into subs dedicated to discussing the topic like Reddit Alternatives and anti-protested, and still others went so far as to brigade many small, entirely unrelated niche subs, taking over polls asking the actual MEMBERS of those subs what they wanted to do, making any discussion of the situation held hostage by a toxic barrage of venomous filth, often by accounts that seemed to have been created for just that purpose in mind due to their highly suspicious age. In my own sub, we had to record comments by hand b/c we felt that we could not trust automated polling as a result.:-(
Some subs shut down for merely a day or two (as mine did). A few more shut down for a little longer - measured in days to weeks.
But several subs, including some of the top ones on the entire site, shut down for MONTHS. And some even shut down permanently, only to have their decisions overturned by Reddit who sent in scabs to open them back up, months later.
So… it was a spectrum ofc, and perhaps the subs you were interested in were primarily affected for a couple weeks. But on the whole, the long tail of the protests lasted much longer than a mere few days, or even weeks, and the likes of John Olivier pic spam lasted for months.:-)
It's probably because I generally saw the sub shutdowns as a result of the protest, and not as an ongoing protest. Reddit clearly wasn't in any talks with the mods at that point and vica versa.
Honestly i'll just go with it being months. I'm basically just arguing semantics at this point.
I only ever really browsed Reddit with Apollo and I monitored the situation somewhat. I feel like the subs that could migrate easier (more techy, more text than pictures) stayed closed the longest or permanently. The ones that can’t really (like those more picture streamy ones as the sfw porn network) were open again fastest from what I remember.
So depending on interest it could have felt way shorter or longer.
I am still missing some of the subs I liked, but I don’t expect some of them to actually pop up here.
It’s always good to keep one’s shill detector up on Ars vis-a-vis Reddit given the ownership situation. I’ve so far not seen anything that rises to that level, including here, because of the audience. If you’re on Ars and don’t know what Reddit is, this story isn’t going to be of interest and thus is not going to push you to try using Reddit.
That said, this story only seems relevant to the minuscule-if-at-all-extant sliver of Ars readers who know what Reddit is and haven’t been using it only because they’ve been waiting to hear what paid apps look like eight months after the whole fiasco started. That’s not a demographic I’ve ever seen represented in the comments.
Very rarely there may be something that you need. Even so, it is becoming increasingly rare to find that knowledge. Spez decided that he owns it now, though some of us here happen to disagree:-).
Nor do you need a mobile app to use Reddit in any case:-). Anyway I think I am with you - we almost hear more about how Reddit is doing here in the Fediverse than we did back when we were on Reddit:-).
totally ignoring matters such as their usage stats
The author asked multiple devs about these things - they all had the same reply: Can’t talk about it because NDA.
more importantly the content itself that is now flat-out missing from Reddit. Go to any old thread and you’ll see the “this content has been removed by” (whichever of the automated software to remove posts was used in that case) messages.
That’s not the stated objective of the article, which was “Exploring Reddit’s third-party app environment.”
Honestly it reads like a shill to promote Reddit as in “hey, all that fuss was for nothing - you should totally come back now”.
No, it doesn’t. You don’t call it an “APIcalypse” if you’re shilling for Reddit. You don’t pull out the most critical quote right at the top if you want to shill for Reddit. (“I don’t believe Reddit’s leadership… cares about developers anymore.”) You don’t mention Lemmy, or Threads, or Tildes if you’re shilling for Reddit.
You admit that you’re biased; good, thank you. This article isn’t.
If you just leave the criminals alone and let them do as they please they’ll regulate themselves. A criminal justice system is just unnecessary and expensive administrative overhead. It stifles the free market.
exactly. the only reason im robbed for so much is because of the cost the criminals incur because of the justice system. If we let the free market handle it the cost of being robbed will drop to the what the market will bear. Criminals will compete to rob you of less.
This is why it’s important that we continue to give tax breaks to the criminals and subsidize their operations for specific projects that would help everyone.
But again, we must make sure to not cause any undue burden on the criminals by making those funds conditional, or regulating how the projects are carried out. Otherwise they will be forced to rob us further, and who could blame them?
arstechnica.com
Hot