Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games

[SDceltGuy]

The origin of Covid has not been proven in any capacity, and most likely never will until the Chinese government is overthrown and their records can be accessed.

Saying it is definitively a lab origin or an animal crossover is disinformation at this point because nothing has been proven. So yeah, I have zero issue with private social media companies removing such posts for disinformation.

So, neither can be proven and both are admittedly plausible - you have no problem with tech companies (working with govt) to squash one half of the debate?  US agencies funded the lab and top guys (like Fauci) would have an interest in making sure that it is not proven as a leak.     

[GreenlyGreeny]

Here for basketball, not politics. Sorry.

[SDceltGuy]

I'm not sure I'm understanding this post. As far as I can tell, there's a fresh investigation pending into whether or not the virus was a lab-leak. That's not the same thing as proving it was a lab leak, which was the assertion.

I didnt mean to imply it was proven a lab leak, bad wording on my part.  I was just giving examples of previously censored 'misinformation' which has changed. 

[GreenlyGreeny]

Here for basketball, not politics. Sorry.

[Moranis]

The origin of Covid has not been proven in any capacity, and most likely never will until the Chinese government is overthrown and their records can be accessed.

Saying it is definitively a lab origin or an animal crossover is disinformation at this point because nothing has been proven. So yeah, I have zero issue with private social media companies removing such posts for disinformation.

So, neither can be proven and both are admittedly plausible - you have no problem with tech companies (working with govt) to squash one half of the debate?  US agencies funded the lab and top guys (like Fauci) would have an interest in making sure that it is not proven as a leak.   

Facebook removes false posts on all sorts of issues on both sides of every argument.  If they disproportionally remove posts of a certain group or ideology it is because those are disproportionately filled with more false information. 

[SDceltGuy]

  If they disproportionally remove posts of a certain group or ideology it is because those are disproportionately filled with more false information.

That posts should be removed for false information.  No intelligent person can seriously believe that big tech has no political bias, and that bias plays no role in how they moderate. 

So when Biden says the Dems 3.5 Trillion budget plan will cost net '$0'.  Will this be removed? 

[Kernewek]

Big tech absolutely has biases, but they probably aren’t exactly what you think they are. In fact, I would say that if anything, most of these companies would like to be even more libertarian than they are with regards to letting people post content. They’re a weird intersection of the old and new internet, in that way.

I’d be happy to talk more about this, but it’s getting a little off track. And, after all, I am just an anonymous Celtics fan on the internet, so I don’t know how much it would help.

And to catch up: agreed that as evidence changes, our opinions should change. In fact there are huge implications on whether this was a lab leak or a natural jump, because it will basically decide the response in terms of how regulations are tightened up.

But there is a difference between how the lab leak was originally presented at the time and the investigation now. Or, in other words, it’s more clearly not in line with the 5G/Bill Gates stuff, so it makes sense that there is more open discourse.

[gift]

  If they disproportionally remove posts of a certain group or ideology it is because those are disproportionately filled with more false information.

That posts should be removed for false information.  No intelligent person can seriously believe that big tech has no political bias, and that bias plays no role in how they moderate. 

So when Biden says the Dems 3.5 Trillion budget plan will cost net '$0'.  Will this be removed?

You've already been told that Facebook doesn't make mistakes and even when they do it's for your overall benefit.

[keevsnick]

Nobody is calling for censorship of facts and scientific data. We’re all entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

Yes they are, if you have been paying attention.  Recently a respected podcast I listen to was given a strike and the video pulled off youtube for 'medical misinformation' because his guest (congressman) said that previously infected people likely have stronger immunity that those vaxd.  Early on they took down videos of 'conspiracy theorists' saying virus came from lab, not bats and videos of ER doctors saying ventilators may be causing lung damage.  Lots of other examples as well.  All these were later proven true - but were censored.  Free flow of information is best - not some dopey lying politicians and big tech activists deciding what is allowable to say.  Im sure you would feel differently if Trump was the guy doing the censoring - but since its your tribe controlling the narative, it is acceptable.

I mean even saying "all were later proven true" isn't really accurate here. The lab leak hypothesis has in no way proven true. So that's just a dumb example. But to be fair that's been covered.

The concept of misinformation is complicated, its not always a matter of whether a statement is strictly true or not. For example the "natural immunity is stronger argument" has SOME backing for it, mainly in the form of one study out of Israel that has yet to be peer reviewed that found that those naturally immune have a higher degree of protection than those vaccinated. But it is far from settled science right now, and making a scientific claim that portrays something as already settled when its still being studied is a form of misinformation even if it later turns out to be true, especially if the downside risk to being wrong is high. Also, even if the substance of a claim is true (ie natural immunity is stronger), if it's used in support of a claim that isn't true (you're better off getting covid than a vaccine), then its still misinformation. That same paper currently under review form israel for example found added benefit in vaccination even for those already infected naturally.

All that said I'm not sure what the best way to control the flow of information is. There will always be tension between trying to prevent misinformation and allowing maximum information flow. If you try to prevent misinformation from being disseminated you will, occasionally, cut of info that turns out to be true/ accurate because out sorting process will never be perfect.   What I do know is the way we've typically done it, which is allow anybody to post anything anywhere with no thought to the accuracy of the information clearly massively harmful to our country. So we gotta try something.

[gift]

I'm so over reports like these.

People need to get over themselves. Get vaccinated and move on. It's how life's been since the inception of vaccination. Why suddenly all the discourse.

We honestly live in the dumbest of timelines.

It's alright, the world is slowly (and thankfully) making the world an unfriendly place for the wilfully unvaccinated.

People think that "freedom" means freedom from responsibility, but it doesn't.

It really comes down to self vs society.

I’m a believer that at times, “self” trumps society.  Societies can go down bad paths. 

But, even then, I don’t understand the analysis most non-vaxxers are making.  Their own self-interest suggests they should take the vaccine in almost all instances.

So our nation’s newest and gravest weakness is a huge percentage of the population being unable to think critically who are also easily manipulated via social media (and eager to be manipulated, frankly). Once we recognize that our enemies now realize this weakness and our government refuses to regulate social media such that we can end the manipulation by our adversaries, it all makes sense why anti-vaxxers are the way they are, making arguments that really make no sense if you’re able to think critically…

This is sort of like asking how you know that your real life isn't just a dream, but how do you know that you are not one of the people you speak of? What's your process?

Simple: Zero participation on the largest social media platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, etc.). The algos of these companies are designed to outrage folks because that keeps most folks glued to the platform which means more data/advertising/revenue off the real product (i.e., the people who use the service). The algos are designed to outrage and keep telling people what they want to hear regardless of whether it is backed up by science/facts (because most people apparently just want their biases confirmed, as these social experiments are demonstrating all too well, but this is doubly true of those who cannot think critically).

Our adversaries have always been aware of our massive number of people who cannot think critically (on both sides of the political spectrum), but in the 2010s they were given a mechanism (i.e., unregulated social media) to readily manipulate such folks, with assists provided by the algos that would make John Stockton blush.

Our elected leaders need to close this glaring national security gap ASAP. Can you imagine if the government just allowed the Kremlin and Communist Party of China to send their nationals into our country in the physical world to pose as Americans who then influence masses of people to believe in disinformation that does not serve the national interests of America? That’s effectively what they’re allowing to happen in the digital world. Like in the physical world, this practice by our enemies in the digital world needs to be met with swift retribution. It is going to require smart regulation of tech companies that use algorithms and allow people to use their services “free” of cost (which absolutely makes it tenfold easier for adversaries to hide their tracks relative to a world where subscription-based funds can be followed, so one potential way to start better tracking/eliminating these threats is requiring Facebook, Twitter, etc. to move to a subscription-based model without algos designed to make people unintentionally addicted to misinformation/disinformation). This is not about politics. The strength of our nation belongs to us all, and this is an area where we clearly need to become much stronger much more quickly than we’ve witnessed the past year or two.

Do you ever consider that you might be wrong, even just as an exercise?

Everyone is wrong at different times. That’s part of the scientific method. Keeping an open mind, recognizing you were wrong when more data becomes available, is key. You adjust accordingly. For example, I was wrong in 2020 to take the word of certain scientific voices that this virus emerged in nature. A cursory review of readily available statistical information shows the probability of that being true is quite low (improbable, but far from impossible…we just do not know yet with the data available, but the information available points increasingly in one direction). Many others in the scientific community recognize this faulty assumption of 2020 needs to be removed and all origin theories need to back on the table subject to testing/investigation.

I agree with you about manipulation and critical thinking. I just don't think it breaks down conveniently in a way that aligns with my personal beliefs. But I could be wrong about that, and I could be right all of the time after all. 

I fall roughly in the middle of the political spectrum, rightward on some things and leftward on others. The great tragedy of the past 20 years is how people are increasingly made to feel like they need to agree with a tribe and toe the party line. Cannot think of something more un-American, frankly. It’s certainly a recipe that enriches the consulting and lobbying classes (and lazy/manipulative media who do not want to just report the facts), but it also contributes greatly to the decline of the nation. It has to stop.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Yet we seem to significantly disagree on some points about which you seem to indicate only a manipulated person would disagree. How can this be so (assuming you believe me when I say I don't really use social media and I do think critically about these issues)?

[Vermont Green]

Now Michael Porter;

Nuggets forward Michael Porter Jr. isn’t comfortable taking the vaccine for COVID-19 and is adamant there shouldn’t be a mandate for NBA players to take it. Porter, in an interview with The Denver Post, said his opinion is based on two separate bouts with COVID. “For me, I had COVID twice, I saw how my body reacted, and although the chances are slim, with the vaccine, there’s a chance you could have a bad reaction to it,” Porter said. “For me, I don’t feel comfortable

If he has had it twice, that is really unusual.  Kind of hard to believe actually.  I think you can be tested for antibodies.  It seems reasonable that this would be an allowable alternate to getting vaccinated.  The vaccine is probably still the surest way.

[gift]

Nobody is calling for censorship of facts and scientific data. We’re all entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

Yes they are, if you have been paying attention.  Recently a respected podcast I listen to was given a strike and the video pulled off youtube for 'medical misinformation' because his guest (congressman) said that previously infected people likely have stronger immunity that those vaxd.  Early on they took down videos of 'conspiracy theorists' saying virus came from lab, not bats and videos of ER doctors saying ventilators may be causing lung damage.  Lots of other examples as well.  All these were later proven true - but were censored.  Free flow of information is best - not some dopey lying politicians and big tech activists deciding what is allowable to say.  Im sure you would feel differently if Trump was the guy doing the censoring - but since its your tribe controlling the narative, it is acceptable.

The concept of misinformation is complicated, its not always a matter of whether a statement is strictly true or not. For example the "natural immunity is stronger argument" has SOME backing for it, mainly in the form of one study out of Israel that has yet to be peer reviewed that found that those naturally immune have a higher degree of protection than those vaccinated. But it is far from settled science right now, and making a scientific claim that portrays something as already settled when its still being studied is a form of misinformation even if it later turns out to be true, especially if the downside risk to being wrong is high.

I don't want to get into a score keeping tally, but I'll point out that there has been content and messaging that you should get vaccinated even if you have natural immunity, and some that vaccine immunity is better, and that content has gone largely uncriticized as misinformation despite it filling the requirements you've described. In fact, it's treated as quite the opposite.

I think if we're being honest we can acknowledge there are strong institutional pressures that create an official, establishment narrative. And I don't think the conflicts are so much between this opinion or that opinion as much as any opinion vs. the official opinion. We already know the official opinion is one slow to change, to admit mistakes and acknowledge alternatives. I think this is the great concern. That our best opinions are not our official ones at any given time. Yet our best opinions must survive a disproportionate scrutiny to even be allowed. The fact that our worst opinions must survive this filter is of little consolation. Because many of us believe the worst opinions will fail even in more favorable exposure. Some of us see this environment as a net negative to us all.

[SDceltGuy]

What I do know is the way we've typically done it, which is allow anybody to post anything anywhere with no thought to the accuracy of the information clearly massively harmful to our country. So we gotta try something.

 I vehemently disagree with giving a group of people the power to censor information.  It will always be abused, always.  The best way to combat bad ideas is with logical honest dialog - make you case knowing not everyone will agree.   The cry of 'we have to do something' is a bad way to make policy.  I also disagree with the idea that misinformation on social media is the primary reason people arent getting vaxd and that if we had 100% pro vax propaganda the sheep would get in line. 

[GreenlyGreeny]

Here for basketball, not politics. Sorry.

[hpantazo]

Wiggins is now vaccinated, will be cleared to play in all home games:

https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-kerr-says-andrew-wiggins-has-taken-covid-19-vaccine-will-be-allowed-at-home-games-191745719.html

Conclusion: vaccine mandates work. I think seeing that the NBA athletes who were against covid vaccines are fine after getting them will also go a long way towards convincing people in the US who are still frightened to get vaccinated.