[jazzypants]

Buddy... Are you a doctor? Are you a scientist? Why do you think that you have an inalienable right to proselytize your "health practices" on a public forum?

My experience was that there wasn't nearly enough moderation on social media about Covid. The absurd amount of misinformation was the final straw that finally got me to leave Facebook and Instagram.

[bayindirh]

The problem during the pandemic was, even health professionals' personal accounts got censored. It was hectic.

[mannanj]

Yup. My experience was this. Many professionals I knew were censored, one of the biggest was an old family friends' mentor who ultimately lost his job in Virginia. He became a big name and ultimately, sued the FDA and won money though the court sealed it I believe or there was some outcome where things couldn't be disclosed. I think those are common with big govt cases.

[runtime_terror]

Source?

[mannanj]

This isn't large enough you can't look it up. Type Virginia, covid, censorship, FDA, lawsuit, you will find the sources you seek. Your interpretation of it, though, no google search will change your perception however open or not it is.

[jazzypants]

This was not the experience of the health professionals that I know, but I will take your word for it.

[chadgpt3]

How about we first ask what the practices are before we judge the practices?

[jazzypants]

Which part of my post judged the practices? I just want to understand the other user's motivation for complaining because my experience was the polar opposite. I am related to several health professionals, and none of them ever complained about feeling censored in any way.

[MrGilbert]

Your first paragraph set a tone that I would interpret as a "who do you think you are?". But that might just be written text and cultural differences.

[mannanj]

It came off to me as Ad Hominem, making it very difficult for me to engage you.

[mannanj]

I see. So you employ the Ad Hominem style fallacies to attack my credibility. No thank you.

Unlike you, I listen with an open mind and curiosity. It's led me to an obsession in my health practices as a nearly full-time job for about 10 years, I don't just blindly follow what I'm spoon fed by a doctor or some authority figure. And neither do I blindly call forth the label of "science" to win approval and credibility.

[runtime_terror]

Science is literally the path towards understanding of the world around us through hypothesis, experimentation and study. That's definitionally being open minded and curious.

Your statements imply that we can't trust scientists because of their "authority" and that they just use that position as scientists to nefariously control you?

Why should anyone trust you? "Curiosity", having an "open mind" and "a nearly full-time job for about 10 years" aren't credentials anyone with critical thinking would recognize as reliable.

Whether you like it or not, scientists and doctors have to go through many years of rigorous study and full-time practice for their specific fields and are constantly challenged by their peers in their work place and in academia. That's a more reliable (tho not perfect) set of credentials.

Scientists are intellectually adversarial to each other by nature because all ideas must be challenged (eg peer review) in order for those ideas to become consensus. Science is constantly in a state of change and evolution as incorrect conclusions ideas are abandoned in favor of more correct conclusions, based on new learning.

That's the whole point. Science will get things wrong, it's impossible not to some times, but the global scientific community is constantly seeking to get closer and closer to base "truth" about the world.

Unless you have some other suggestion, I don't see any other way humans can get a clear understanding of the world other than the scientific process and I see no less reliable source than the current global scientific consensus.

[mannanj]

hi runtime, thank you for attempting to engage in good faith.

when I said I don't blindly follow authority or blindly call "science" as a credibility shield, I think you demonstrated bad faith of my argument by saying:

> Your statements imply that we can't trust scientists because of their 'authority' and that they just use that position as scientists to nefariously control you?

I never implied scientists can't be trusted or that they're nefarious. This is both a straw man and attacking me as some sort of person wishing ill intent on others.

When you said > I don't see any other way humans can get a clear understanding of the world other than the scientific process

Again via bad faith, or straw man, you imply I have rejected the scientific process.

Do you know what circular framing is? Do you see any circular reasoning issues in your response? I thank you for your engagement, though I can see we aren't aligned in intent in having an open-minded, scientific conversation.

[jazzypants]

You were talking about your personal experience, were you not? How can I avoid Ad Hominem when we are literally talking about you? I definitely could have phrased my question better, but I genuinely don't understand why you think that a public forum run by a private company should be required to publish unverified "health practices" in the midst of a global pandemic.

I'm not going to pretend that the CDC did a good job during Covid, but it's very clear to me that a lot fewer people would have died if we had all followed their guidance more strictly. I generally err on the side of sparse moderation, but life and death scenarios are one of my main exceptions.

I'm sorry if I offended you. It seems like we disagree on the fundamental nature of science, and I don't think that it's likely that we will overcome that disagreement. So, it looks like this conversation is over. Have a good day!

[mannanj]

I think you should look at your tone, have a neutral party look at the assumptions, logical fallacies, and general bad faith you demonstrate. I can't see how we can continue when I am assuming good faith, and you are assuming bad faith. Indeed in a hostile interaction which I don't desire, the conversation is over.

Cheers!

[gkoz]

You're describing a crank. Avoiding cranks is a good strategy even if technically biased.

[tclancy]

Because giving every maniac an equal voice and hearing them out is asymmetric. They have the burden of proof to have said “my perfectly validated facts I’ve learned in two decades as a scientist” or whatever if they wanted to provide that context.

Then again, here I am arguing in good faith with you, so more the fool I.

[mannanj]

Just to be clear, are you calling me a Maniac without actually knowing me or what I've done or my experience? and throwing off the word "conspiracy" theory and attempting to simply shut down my voice.

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

I can't wait until one day you get old enough and wise enough to hold a voice that is anti-mainstream or anti-populist, and some youngin throws your words Conspiracy right back at you to censor you. Enjoy what we call, "Karma" my friend.

[JumpCrisscross]

> They have the burden of proof

This isn’t how the algorithm works. It costs less than $10k to get some conspiratorial nonsense circulating nowadays, and less than $1mm to flood the zone.

[tclancy]

Sorry, I think this got confused because you can only reply so deep. I meant conspiracy theory folks should have the burden of proof. If you're saying that's completely naive in the current climate, I agree. I am only arguing that's how we should treat commenters who seem more than 7 bubbles off plumb: ignore entirely unless they provide reason not to.

[JumpCrisscross]

> ignore entirely unless they provide reason not to

The reason not to is they start trending and then infecting the political system. By the time anyone brings evidence to the table, the status quo has been shifted.