[InvisibleCities]

[Sober, well-researched article about the dangers of pervasive social media that calls for strong government regulation]

“This link has been associated with harmful extremist content. Are you sure you wish to proceed?”

[Closi]

100% agree - let’s not forget that at the start of the pandemic the social media platforms called the lab leak theory an extreme conspiracy and some social platforms blocked links, now it’s one of the leading theories, so clearly and unsurprisingly these policies have already resulted in legitimate discourse being blocked.

[bellyfullofbac]

I think I use the scientific method a lot, and dismissing a possible theory as "extremist conspiracy" before having all the answers is very unscientific, especially if the other theory (zoonotic spread) doesn't have bulletproof evidence yet. The fact that some scientists signed up to the zoonotic theory and dismissed the lab leak theory is weird, and the fact that social media banned the links means their censorship is flawed.

Then again, too many idiots think proof means "The CCP notoriously likes to hide stuff, therefore they're hiding the lab leak, therefore the lab leak theory is real, QED". That sort of disinformation does deserve a ban.

Now watch this comment get downvoted for... not following the herd?

[skissane]

> Then again, too many idiots think proof means "The CCP notoriously likes to hide stuff, therefore they're hiding the lab leak, therefore the lab leak theory is real, QED". That sort of disinformation does deserve a ban.

"The CCP notoriously likes to hide stuff, which makes it more likely that they're hiding the lab leak, which makes it more likely that the lab leak theory is true" isn't that far off but seems much more reasonable.

Should we ban people for making strawman arguments, or should we steelman their argument in response?

[bellyfullofbac]

> which makes it more likely that they're hiding the lab leak, which makes it more likely that the lab leak theory is true.

Geezus Christ, just as I'm talking about scientific thinking and lack of it. No and no! It's possible, but they're not more likely!

Why they don't want Western investigators free reign investigating the lab? Imagine if the WHO asked the US to let in Chinese investigators in their virology labs. Maybe they're hiding bio-weapons research, or cancer research that they want bragging rights for, but it doesn't automatically mean there's the "Covid smoking gun" being hidden there. It's possible, but them being cagey doesn't make it more possible.

[fighterpilot]

It sounds like you've misunderstood the statement.

They're not saying the lab-leak is more likely than not given the CCP likes to hide things. They're saying the lab-leak becomes relatively more likely after conditioning on the information that the CCP likes to hide things.

That's completely reasonable if we think the tendency to hide info is going to asymmetrically impact the investigation into a leak more than an investigation into zoonotic origins. It's also reasonable even if we think they're going to hide things whether or not it really was a leak, since the impact can still be asymmetric.

[skissane]

If someone has a track record of hiding stuff, that fact makes it more likely [0] they are actually hiding something. It doesn’t definitively prove they are hiding anything in particular; something being more likely is compatible with it being false. And saying “more likely” is saying nothing about how much more likely; it could just be slightly more likely.

I don’t see how saying that is a “lack of scientific thinking”. I think that criticism is just false.

[0] “more likely” is talking about epistemic probability, Bayesian probability

[bellyfullofbac]

> If someone has a track record of hiding stuff, that fact makes it more likely [0] they are actually hiding something.

That's a tautology. So what, what if someone came with a theory that the virus comes from meteorite that people from this lab had been researching? Does their cageyness mean more likely that the meteorite theory is true? Geez...

[AussieWog93]

>Now watch this comment get downvoted for... not following the herd?

Come on man, don't be like that. You're basically asking people to give you upvotes.

[azangru]

> now it’s one of the leading theories

I think the consensus is yet to move on this one. In a recent text I saw by someone who was trying to channel the majority opinion of the scientific community, they were calling it the less likely possibility, or something to that effect. I believe it's only in the public opinion that it became one of the leading theories, because the media suddenly decided that it was going to allow people to talk about it, and Jon Stewart went on Stephen Colbert...

[peakaboo]

That's just one out of many more events the mainstream media has been disregarding or lying about. It may be extreme to call the mainstream media propaganda but then again, it may not.

[herbst]

When people say mainstream media what do they mean? Our Swiss media houses never really excluded any Theorie that could get milked for clicks. I mean why would they?

Facebook did censor a lot, but Facebook can't be considered media.

Edit:// isn't it more the lack of willingness to explore outside your bubble before you form an opinion?

[brandonmenc]

> It may be extreme to call the mainstream media propaganda but then again, it may not.

Warranted or not, they have duck-typed themselves into it.

[mschuster91]

> let’s not forget that at the start of the pandemic the social media platforms called the lab leak theory an extreme conspiracy and some social platforms blocked links

That was because back then the people spreading the lab leak theory were almost exclusively Alex Jones-level or worse crackpots.

[panxyh]

But the aggressiveness with which this theory was dismissed and ridiculed is unbelievable. In the beginning i had often to double-check that I got the context right - that in fact it's about an accidental leak, not intended, but still treated like some tinfoil hat preaching, a conspiracy theory. If anything, that kind of response could push me to believing conspiracies i otherwise wouldn't. I lost a lot of respect for the general population and even the crowd here.

[hairofadog]

I think the issue with the early messaging on the lab-leak theory is that it was bundled with anti-immigrant messaging, which was somehow presented as an alternative to actually doing anything at all about controlling the spread of the virus.

Which is to say, it appeared to me that the messaging was along the lines of

* There's a virus, but it's no big deal and it's going to disappear, and you're an idiot if you wear a mask

* However, the virus was started in a lab in China

* Therefore, we should put more resources toward border security and remove avenues to citizenship and work visas

* And people who appear to be of asian descent should be harassed on the street for good measure

If someone gives you a message that's 75% bullshit, it can be difficult to sort out the other 25%.

[meowface]

Some people certainly spread such messages, but on HN and other places in early 2020, I saw many reasonable, scientific-minded, likely left-leaning people discuss the possibility soberly.

My own stance shifted a bit due to an early/mid-2020 HN thread, where I kind of naively assumed there was already a conclusive consensus around a zoonotic origin and that the sequence didn't indicate any human meddling. I presented that side of it, and also how the presence of the lab has to be considered in a Bayesian sense; e.g. what if the lab was built there due to an existing concentration of new viruses or virus-carrying species in that area. After reading some thoughtful replies, I realized it was pretty irresponsible and not completely rational of me to dismiss the theory out of hand, and ended up editing my post and have been continuously considering and weighing all of the circumstantial evidence on either side since then. (At the moment I'm pretty much agnostic or 50/50 on it.)

The problem is that anything unorthodox is inevitably going to have lots of crazy and ill-intentioned people associated with it, serving as ideal "weak men" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...).

In some cases deliberately, but usually inadvertently and due to bias, those positions will be painted with the brush of the craziest, least credible, and most assholish of the sources. I'm an armchair conspiracy theory (attempted) debunker so I've seen this and have tried to keep myself from doing this many times, because it's actually a failure mode that's not as severe as but not quite unlike the pervasive confirmation bias of conspiracy theorists themselves. This kind of pattern matching often does work well, which is what makes it even more epistemologically fraught when applied to new, controversial events and ideas that are developing in real-time.

[paul_f]

Great example of a ad hominem fallacy. Well done. :-)

[josefresco]

Pretty sure Alex Jones has stated in court, in his own defense that everything he says is for "entertainment" has has no basis in truth or reality. So by his own admission, you can't trust what he says. You can be entertained though and apparently that's enough for many Americans.

[RegBarclay]

Rachel Maddow has done the same, but I know way too many people who trust what she says.

[josefresco]

I don't watch Rachel Maddow but I certainly wouldn't trust her opinion (being a TV news personality) on such important topics as COVID where she (and every other news personality) has zero qualifications.

Can you share the link to her testimony?

[darthrupert]

Does this actually happen?

[pydry]

If you try to apply ML to this problem.

[ttt0]

Considering the fact that they're fact-checking stupid memes, I wouldn't be surprised.