[embedding-shape]

> “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly told MedPage Today, which first reported the incident. “They’re taking our lanyards. It really has come to this in America. Censorship is real. America needs to stand up. Scientists, stand up. Physicians, stand up.”

It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to stand up was yesterday, and you might already be too far down the slope to be able to quickly recover for this. I really do feel for all Americans who just want to have a normal life with an average quality of life or above, but at one point the environment around you change so quickly that that stops being even a possibility in the future. If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly.

The best day to stand up against the ongoing censorship and repression might have been yesterday, but the second-best day to do so is today. You really need to start caring about this before it's way to late. One "no kings protest" every 6 months is not gonna do anything, what you need is wide solidarity across industries, and a real general strike across the country. The second you do this, you'll see that the many and poor can control the few and rich.

[donkey_brains]

I completely agree with what you are saying, but I have grown too cynical to believe it will ever happen. American capitalism has been very effective at ensuring 2 outcomes:

- The population is kept just comfortable enough to become complacent, with easy access to intoxicants, brainrot media and fast food. Now there are even robots that can do our thinking for us. A large percentage of people are brainwashed into thinking that all change is bad because it will cause them to lose the paltry, ersatz freedom they have rather than gaining real liberty.

- The labor pool is kept large enough that any of us could be replaced immediately with no significant loss to our employers. As the ISP mantra goes, “we have nothing to lose but our jobs”.

Yes, we know that they couldn’t replace _all_ of us at once, but combine points 1 and 2 and you will start to understand why there is no appreciable labor movement in the United States.

[embedding-shape]

What chills me the most, is the self-censorship Americans engage on social media today, everywhere online. It seems Americans today are afraid of talking clearly about general strikes, protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship and more "taboo" topics, and I'm guessing it's because the platforms kind of shadow-ban people quickly for it.

Growing up, I always heard Americans bragging about freedom of speech, and how important it is. I'll admit I swallowed that wholesale as a young impressionable person in another country, and I still believe in it, just not the American freedom of speech flavor I suppose. But it's so sad to see the state of affairs compared to just ten years ago, where discussions could be freely held, even on mainstream social media, and people weren't afraid of talking about things with clear words.

But the chilling effect is in full effect today, and I think it's having a large impact on how well (or not) the working class could actually mobilize. Because as soon as anyone mentions "general strike" on social media, they seem to disappear into a black hole and that stuff never shows up in people's feeds. Regardless of the size of the labor pool, if you can't organize people somehow, especially across a large country like the US, it's short of impossible to actually get any change in reality.

[jandrewrogers]

Americans don't talk about "general strikes" because they don't care about general strikes and never really have. That concept doesn't have a place in American culture. I know socialists keep trying to make it salient but that is like trying to impose democracy on Afghanistan.

You have to work with what you have, not what you wish you had.

[watwut]

> Americans today are afraid of talking clearly about general strikes, protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship

Americans are talking about protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship all the time ... and I mean literally all sides - liberals, conservatives, leftists, feminists, MAGA ...

[embedding-shape]

Using what words specifically? Besides HN, even people commenting on reddit tends to self-censor words like "r@pe" just because they've realized they get penalized if they talk about things too clearly, on other platforms. Same with general strikes, censorship and more, even on platforms where you don't get downranked automatically just because you used specific terms, people have now started self-censor in those ways.

[applfanboysbgon]

> "r@pe"

Whenever you see something like this, it's because the platform has some kind of automoderation policy that is liable to delete/shadowban content containing the word. Typing that, then, is not self-censorship; it's the exact opposite, the defiance of external censorshop.

[bcraven]

I hear this argument, but can't believe the content filters are so crap they can't detect simple letter replacements like that.

[astura]

>people commenting on reddit tends to self-censor words like "r@pe"

That's just because reddit is almost entirely children and bots/shills. Yes, a platform full of children is going to be childish.

[AlexeyBelov]

Average Reddit user is in their late 20s or early 30s.

[embedding-shape]

I'm not talking specifically about reddit...

[ThrowawayR2]

The chilling effect on speech on social media platforms is because they are ad funded, nothing more. Advertisers have no desire to be associated with controversy.

If someone wants unfettered speech, it has to be someplace for which they are willing to pay the hosting and moderation bills. "Private businesses don't owe you a platform for your speech" as the American left liked to say.

[embedding-shape]

Meanwhile, the Swedes seems able to run a forum entirely supported by ads, yet still enable unfettered freedom of speech, together with really strong moderation, which results in a place where you can actually discuss pretty much anything. Online since 95 although taken offline in various points of it's life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashback_Media_Group

Maybe it's just the American way of doing ad-funded social media that is the problem?

[scoofy]

It's not "captialism." Sweden is capitalist. Norway is capitalist. It's about America going from a high-trust wealthy society, to a low-trust, mostly lower class society with increasing wealth inequality.

If you look around the world, this is effectively the natural state of affairs: India, South Africa, Nigeria, Russia... they all have the same pattern. The US and the West was the outlier in the '50-'90 because we had a lot of wealth redistribution AND free markets. Then the boomers were like, fuck that, we want to all be rich... and they mostly are, but everyone else is fucked.

Government is hard, you need people to give a shit. We decided we don't care somewhere along the way.

[LocalH]

1984 ended up being a playbook rather than a warning

[roenxi]

This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. The gentleman in question could have gone to protest outside (and probably did).

The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).

[adrian_b]

Their so-called "protest" was just distributing an article already published in the journal of the medical association to which this conference is attached, which probably discussed matters of interest for the attendance, like the future of research financing in this domain.

I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it.

Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.

[roenxi]

I'm no doctor, but I suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes. Rather than exploring whether the USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.

[JumpCrisscross]

> suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes

The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes. If the actions it describes continues, significant efforts towards treating and even curing diabetes will be lost.

[ciupicri]

> Just a year ago, in these very pages, we highlighted the many threats the current U.S. administration posed to the health of our nation (1). Since then, there have been actions by the administration that have caused grave health consequences, and their current approach will continue to do so.

It sounds to me like criticism of the government.

[JumpCrisscross]

> sounds to me like criticism of the government

The article is not a long read [1]. It describes how current policy is dismantling and destroying the research infrastructure for diabetes, infrastructure which has started or has already borne significant fruit. It encapsulates a criticism of the administration, and it’s definitely scathing, but it’s far from a partisan rant.

For example: “This CD3-directed monoclonal antibody has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. As a result, we are a major step closer to a cure for type 1 diabetes. With the potential to prevent the disease, screening programs for type 1 diabetes are being initiated worldwide.

…

Two examples are the Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) and the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP). HIRN aims to advance our understanding of how β-cells are lost in human type 1 diabetes and to find inventive strategies to protect or replace β-cells in people with the disease.”

The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with or at risk of getting diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death.

[1] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...

[skywhopper]

If the government is actively working against diabetes research, then there is no way to say that without “criticizing” the government.

[brookst]

It was criticizing systematic anti-science decisions which lead to bad outcomes for diabetes research, and ultimately those with diabetes.

The idea that a science based defense of science is anti-government and therefore off limits for a conference is downright Soviet.

[throwaway173738]

Are you against criticism of the government by private organizations?

[wyldfire]

It's not like the article is indirectly related to the subject of the conference. It is critical of the government, but not in the "human rights abuses of this administration threaten us all" way (though even that seems reasonable to discuss).

Is it your position that if an article is critical of a world government it must not be discussed at a scientific conference? Or even "you should expect to get ejected from a conference if you criticize the host government"? Because believe it or not, that's not been a problem in the USA prior to Trump. And it runs contrary to how science should work.

[MemoryHoleHQ]

It wasn't in any way an article, and much less an article about diabetes.

They were distributing an Opinion Piece which title was (yes, this is the full title): Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now!

[wyldfire]

One of science's most critical roles is to inform policymakers. And if they can't do that job effectively then it's right and just to point out the problems preventing it. Scientific conferences that fear critiques of the government chill new scientific publications.

It's not like they were handing out "Trump sleeps during press events" posters. You should read the article they distributed, it's very relevant to the conference attendees.

[JumpCrisscross]

> One of science's most critical roles is to inform policymakers

Yup. From their article: “DCCT/EDIC revolutionized the approach to treating people with type 1 diabetes, establishing standards for glucose control and resulting in improved quality of life along with clinically significant reductions in the risk of diabetes complications and major adverse cardiovascular events.

After 44 years, it continues to provide new insights, including showing that in adults with type 1 diabetes, neurodegeneration is likely the result of non–Alzheimer disease mechanisms. DPP/DPPOS, which enrolled people with prediabetes, demonstrated the benefit of intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin in reducing the risk of developing diabetes. These findings led Congress to approve an amendment to the Social Security Act to establish the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program and provide lifestyle intervention services for eligible individuals.”

[skywhopper]

Yes, but this detail is crucial to continuing to make progress on diabetes treatment and research. So it’s actually more fundamental than anything else.

[866-RON-0-FEZ]

> Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.

The first amendment applies to public spaces. Not private conferences which are invite-only. You're on an anti-U.S. tear in this discussion but lack understanding of the basics.

For the same reason I can't show up at your office and start handing out religious materials and/or pornography (take your pick) to everyone showing up for work and claim it's a free speech issue and my right to do so.

As someone else pointed out below, this exact argument was used to ban apps lacking "correct" moderation from the app stores a few years ago.

[embedding-shape]

> This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference.

Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it.

I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.

[3eb7988a1663]

Conferences have dozens of people distributing pamphlets, papers, ads, and all manner of literature. To share a publication from an authoritative body with peers is a common action.

[Hizonner]

The conference invited Jay Bhattacharya (the NIH director), who I guarantee was not going to give a technical speech, since beyond an 30-year-old, never-professionally-used generic medical degree, he knows approximately dick about diabetes or anything relevant. These guys were handing out copies of an article outside that room. He didn't show and sent a substitute, who was surely going to sing the same song.

By letting NIH political operatives in, the ADA made the conference itself a political event.

> The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).

It does mean a lot of things, and the Trump administration is doing roughly all of them. Sorry about your lack of basic knowledge of current events.

[st-keller]

“When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano preceding the outbreak.”

— Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom

[joemazerino]

It would be wonderful if conference attendees to ADA would stick to the ToS.

[tapoxi]

It's not clear how that was violated, since they're handing out an article from the ADA's own journal.

[throwaway173738]

Minitrue remake goodthink fullwise.

[sandworm101]

>> If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly.

If your life hasnt been affected yet, you arent paying attention. Or, it has been affected for the better because you are one of the many who generally support the movement.

[quietsegfault]

Many of us are protesting every day.

[embedding-shape]

By actually striking, or by waving a sign outside?

Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything.

There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.

[JumpCrisscross]

> short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything

If like another 5% of eligible voters committed to voting every election, minor or not, and committed to calling their electeds on one issue every quarter, we’d likely see a sea change.

The threshold for laziness is very low, currently only 1 in 5 [1]. That’s both annoying and an opportunity.

[1] https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-national-survey-shows-...

[ThrowawayR2]

"Bigger turnout in 2024 would have benefited Trump, new survey finds" https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turno...

The problem is not turnout. What the Democrats seem unable or unwilling to accept is that the American public doesn't agree with their platform and are also unable or unwilling to change their platform to something that voters will elect them for.

[JumpCrisscross]

> problem is not turnout. What the Democrats

You’re only looking at the general. 5% more eligible voters turning out to primaries could easily flip the outcome, or at the very least, signal a political bloc that will show up for someone. 5% of eligible voters contacting their electeds would represent a 25% increase from baseline; this is the sort of power that makes e.g. regulating supplements impossible. (If you try your office’s phone lines get blown up by constituents.)

> unable or unwilling to change their platform

Changing your platform for a group that doesn’t turn out is incredibly risky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time, they keep up not turning out.

[sailfast]

When was the last general strike? And what would it ask for if it happened?

I understand you’re a fan of the method and it can be impactful but that’s not a reason to state that protesting does not accomplish anything.

[embedding-shape]

It's not that I'm a fan of the method, it is that it id historically the only non-violent way for a population at large to enact change, once the government stops listening to the people.

Protesting is very effective when you have a government that listens, which clearly isn't the case here, then besides a bunch of violent options, you're basically left with general strikes.

[danaris]

One of the major union leaders in the US—I forget exactly who; it might've been the head of the Teamsters, but this was a while back, so I don't have the details—has, in fact, called for a general strike, as soon as it can be effectively organized.

That's 2028.

General strikes are not something you can just Make Happen. They're certainly not something you can reasonably scoff at an individual (one who's not the head of a major union) for not having Made Happen. They require significant amounts of coordination between unions if you want them to have a prayer of success, and that takes a lot of time.

Don't denigrate protests of the sign-waving type. They are a very important rallying activity for the resistance. Among other things, they help ensure that people who want to fight back know they're not alone, and ensure people who want the fascists to win know their feelings are not universal.

[embedding-shape]

General strikes are something you can make happen, as an individual, if you push others around you to follow you along. Sure, the US is lacking a lot in the department of having unions and a labor movement, but that doesn't mean it's somehow out of reach. The existing ones in other countries mostly started as grass-root movements, born out of a bunch of individuals going together and deciding they've had enough.

Relying on "union leaders" or political leaders of parties isn't gonna get you anywhere. What you need is active action, something that hurts the people who are trying to hurt you and non-violent protests every 6 months doesn't hurt them one bit.

I agree that protests are important, but they also have their time and place. When the government actively listens, then it's a great way to enact reform. Once the government stops listening though, you need to up your tactics, otherwise you're playing it straight into their pocket.

[danaris]

How?

How, exactly, do you propose that someone with no connections, no authority, and no clout of any kind within major labor organisations of the country "can make happen" a general strike? And if you could, do you think you could make it happen in less than two years? Starting from nothing?

What, exactly, do you think "active action" is, if it doesn't have that kind of backing?

Where I'm from, we call that "crime", and it makes no ripples, it makes no difference, it only ends with you in jail.

We are facing systemic problems, perpetuated by systems that have been co-opted, at the highest levels, by fascists who are itching to kill everyone who doesn't bow to them. Attempting to fight them—like, actual violent fight—with individual solutions is suicide.

[eudamoniac]

Peaceful protest only makes sense as an implied alternative to violent protest.

[Vaslo]

Many of us don’t care.

[Vaslo]

You’re pretending like the vast majority of people are being oppressed by some military government but easily forget that tens of millions of us support the president and aren’t intimidated whatsoever by anything people like you could do.

[whatever1]

All oppressive regimes have die hard supporters. The f'ed up thing is that they may even become the majority. Hence voting cannot fix it.

[Vaslo]

Yeah, it’s well known that oppressive regimes have 10s of millions of supporters.

Or maybe your ideas are just bad, and maybe the other side thinks your ideas are weak and doesn’t want any part of them.

How would you “fix it” without voting? And if it involves “force” why do you ever think we’d let you do that?

[whatever1]

In the beginning the people who vote for them may or may not support the ideology.

But once the regime is in place, over time a fraction of supporters start gaining benefits from it. Wealth, recognition, you name it. The regime controls resources of an entire country they can do it.

This core or supporters become the champions of the regime and will eradicate its competitors. Mentally or physically.

Example: try becoming an opposition party in Russia.

Historically if the erosion of institutions is already bad, there is no going back. Only external pressure (sanctions/wars) or civil war.

Elections work only if every group that has real power has agreed to yield it to institutions that will be elected. Either because they believe or because cumulatively the power they own is not enough to challenge the institutions.

[embedding-shape]

> You’re pretending like the vast majority of people are being oppressed by some military government

I wasn't, or at least I don't think I am. What did I write that gave you that impression? I mainly wrote about freedom of speech and censorship, and nothing of meat about the military really, but maybe I don't realize what I wrote sounds like.

[poly2it]

That's precisely the issue, the power dynamic needs to flip. The state of USA and more worryingly the direction it is in is horrifying.

[sourcegrift]

So much grandstanding based on a single persons account? You might do very well in HR

[emilfihlman]

>“They were respectfully given the opportunity to cease this behavior and chose not to which is why they were escorted out.”

I understand the want to protest, but you do know that misrepresentation doesn't help, right?

Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security

Sure. But if two groups of people are distributing articles published in the organisation’s own journal, with one of them containing elements of political speech, and the organization censors that one, it’s absolutely valid to ask if anyone in government directed that censorship.

The core of the argument is they should not have been asked to cease distributing their article, that’s literally one of the purposes of an academic conference, plenty of other people were doing it in various ways. The ADA, in claiming it was enforcing its rules, was in fact not following them.

[emilfihlman]

Yes I agree that it's quite silly, of course if we assume they acted in a reasonable way (which I can't say for certain if the security had to result to forcefully ejecting them).

It very badly damages credibility to misrepresent what happened. It doesn't further the cause, only damages it.

[ModernMech]

That was the intended result. The story isn't that people were escorted out, it's that they knew they were going to be escorted out and proceeded anyway. That they felt the need to break the rules is the story, because... why did they feel so strongly? Maybe there's a reason behind it?

[emilfihlman]

It reduces their credibility if they misrepresent the story.

[mcphage]

> given the opportunity to cease this behavior

What behavior exactly were they being given an opportunity to cease?

[40four]

Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules. Do people really believe the ADA is a puppet of the administration?

[throwaway173738]

No, they published their rules ahead of time. When you do that you can’t just go and make up new rules on the spot. That’s a central tenet of “the rule of law” that the rules are written down so we can interpret them.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules

Now I’m actually curious for names. One of the people thrown out is an (the?) editor of the ADA’s journal. Who in the chain of command made this call?

[like_any_other]

> It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to stand up was yesterday

"Yesterday" they were largely in favor of censorship: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434589

[joemazerino]

One man's censorship is another man's social justice and equity policy.

[throwaway173738]

No, it’s not. You shouldn’t have to muzzle your opposition to feel safe, or to threaten them with jailing to feel like your ideas are being heard. That speaks to some pretty deep seated insecurity if you feel that way.

[like_any_other]

The comment is not excusing censorship, but illustrating that censors don't like to call what they do "censorship". Even a justification for it is not enough - they don't want to call it "justified censorship", they want to call it something else entirely, and even then they want as little attention paid to it as possible, to trick people into thinking their discussions are free.

[trumpdong]

Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope?

In case you’re being serious, this has been debated in various liberal traditions since the conception liberalism was first born. In essence, the modern liberal tradition (modern as in post-Enlightenment, i.e. about the whole time America has existed) says you don’t censor anything except for forces seeking to censor (paradox of tolerance).

[trumpdong]

So now every force seeking to censor will just say its opposition is a force seeking to censor, and get them censored. Like how the Nazis claimed the Jews were the ones destroying Germany, then the Nazis destroyed Germany. How do you stop that?