Hacker News Reader

Comment by kube-system | Hacker News Reader

Context and intent is important. The CDC describes that method as "Least Effective".

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/p...

If we had no other method, then it might be reasonable to call it effective, in comparison to doing nothing. Given that better options exist, it is not very reasonable to call it effective without qualification.

If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements.

View on HN

Actually, a good case for banning ALL discussion of mask effectiveness on Twitter as being disinformation, since the character limit basically forces turning discussion into simplified dichotomy.

"deliberately" is the key word. Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.

>Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.

How are you supposed to tell which is which without reading minds?

This simply moves the argument from "accurate vs concise" to "concise for good reasons vs concise for bad reasons"

Well we could start by seeing if they have a history of being "concise for bad reasons" instead of endlessly re-legislating the point every time it comes up.

Because in the same way we can rely on health sciences to explain how masks work, we can rely on political science to tell us how senate elections work. :)

You certainly don’t win senate elections by telling your constituents that they’re wrong. You start with the preconceived views of your constituents and work your way backwards to an argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com