Comment by ZoomerCretin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZoomerCretin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

In case anyone is wondering what Pulitzer-prize winning piece she is attempting to share, check out her link yourself: https://gnews.org/1476750/, as well as a fact-check disproving all of the dangerous and false claims inside: https://www.techarp.com/science/greenlight-ivermectin-japan/

I, for one, am glad Facebook is censoring this baseless pseudo-medical advice being given which has been responsible for a massive increase in calls to poison control (https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/texas-s...)

Ivermectin causes “Nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain,” the director of the Texas Poison Center told TPR. “However, you can have further problems, including mental status changes, coma, even seizures… I haven’t seen any deaths here in Texas, but these are things that are reported by the manufacturer with people who use large doses.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/08/americans-poiso...

The whole Ivermectin thing is dumb and stupid. But are you seriously saying silent censorship of links in Messenger is okay?

Sure, its a private communication service. Why isnt it okay? You are using FB infrastructure to communicate, they absolutely should get a say in what you are allowed to share.

If you asked me to pass on a letter then I tell you that I've done so, you'd be annoyed if you found out that I actually just threw it away. If I told you up front that I wasn't willing to pass it on then you could find someone else to do so, but the silent nature inhibits that.

Even without the silence, there's concern about the power and influence held by a few large social media companies with billions of conversations taking place through them. There's been some bipartisan interest in forcing them to either act more like a common carrier or be subject to the full responsibilities of a publisher.

Yes, I agree censoring info on a well-known, FDA-approved drug is "dumb and stupid."

So, you definitely agree then that the Post Office should be using public funds to run a messaging service (similar to messenger, WhatsApp, iMessage, etc), right?

I’m not complaining about the censorship - I’m complaining about the UI pretending to have sent the message.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com