Hacker News Reader

Comment by headsoup | Hacker News Reader

What world have you been living in to miss all the documented reality of the government and co censoring, deplatforming and manipulating social/traditional media to reduce that. You're painting a very rosy picture of reality here.

Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data?

View on HN

> Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data?

It'd be impossible to make that claim. I couldn't possibly be aware of all of the people who have been censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed for talking about the risks of vaccinations, but I do suspect that the vast majority of them likely were (intentionally or otherwise) spreading FUD and disinformation, making claims not supposed by evidence, and misrepresenting facts. Why would I think that? Here's my reasoning:

Is it possible that in some situations social media platforms have been too heavy handed? I'm sure of it.

Does the likely existence of inappropriate actions taken by social media companies mean that the "government and co" (whatever that's supposed to be) is involved in a conspiracy to silence everyone who dares to mention that there are or could be risks? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean that researchers aren't allowed to look into the risks of the vaccines and that no data about those risks has been being collected and studied? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean that mass media refuses to inform the public about any possible risks? No, it doesn't.

Are there many many examples of people talking about the health risks of the vaccines on social media, in mass media, and in the literature without being censored and is that information easily found and accessible? Yes, there are and yes it is.

That tells me that if there is some global conspiracy to silence such talk, that it isn't doing a very good job.

When countless people are talking about those risks, researching those risks, collecting data on those risks, and reporting those risks to the public, and they've been doing it in plain sight for years without being censored, it's then pretty unlikely that there's some hidden conspiracy to make sure those risks are never expressed or explored.

If talking about the risks of the vaccines doesn't get you censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed (as evidenced by all the people who do exactly that and aren't censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed) then there must be a different reason that some people who have been making claims about the risks of vaccines are censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed.

If you look at the twitter files released by Matt Taibi it indeed confirms there is collusion among former twitter and numerous government entities. It’s no conspiracy, there’s straight emails of the government asking for XYZ list of accounts to be suppressed.

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/dec/14/editorial-t...

You further had the suppression of the Hunter biden laptop in DMs and tweets, because government entities stated it was Russian disinformation, while after the convenient time of election cycle, they admit it’s real. What’s the consequence of the intelligence community signing a document stating that it was truly some subversion campaign by Russia, when it was actually a lie to get social media companies to remove politically damning evidence?

https://nypost.com/2022/11/21/cbs-confirms-hunter-biden-lapt...

I fully hear the balanced argument you’re proposing, and to some extent agree, but both sides currently have different sets of blinders on as to what’s reality, and that to me is a scary scenario

The fact that governments do actually engage in censorship doesn't mean that everyone who posts about the real or possible risks of the covid vaccines get their posts censored or that people whose posts about the risks of covid vaccines were removed, were removed because of goverment censorship.

Even in the case of twitter. Here: https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1536697529454272512

There's a tweet about the risks of covid vaccinations. If the government, twitter, or both were censoring discussion of the risks of covid vaccinations how does that exist? How do the countless other uncensored and easily searchable posts that do the same thing exist?

Isn't it more likely that if a post about the risks of covid vaccinations does get removed that it's for a reason other than because of an attempt to hide information about, and prevent discussion of, the risks of covid vaccinations?

Who do you think is telling people they can't talk about the risks? We're doing it. It's talked about all the time everywhere. It's researched every day. The media reports on it to the public. Nobody thinks that there aren't any risks. Whatever oppression exists in the world, "preventing people from talking about or learning about the risks of covid vaccines" is not an example of it.

Particularly at the time of the vaccine rollout, there absolutely was a huge effort across many platforms to mock, silence and ultimately censor individuals. Whether or not there was government collusion, I obviously can't say, but I'd hardly be surprised given the close relationships between media outlets and government officials.

Clearly everyone wasn't being banned, some things were being allowed, but personally I think the conversation was being steered/herded in a way that made one particular point of view more prominent and minimised exposure to alternatives.

For example, I was banned from Reddit world news for simply sharing a science.org article about some of the potential vaccination side effects:

https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-cases-coronavir...

You have been banned for posting content that downplays or mocks necessary public health measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic, such as taking vaccines or wearing masks in the comments section. Such comments violate this subreddit's rule against offensive content and reddit's guideline against harmful content:

Note that health misinformation, namely falsifiable health information that encourages or poses a significant risk of physical harm to the reader, also violates the Rule.

I can't contest this ban and it's permanent.

> There's a tweet about the risks of covid vaccinations. If the government, twitter, or both were censoring discussion of the risks of covid vaccinations how does that exist? How do the countless other uncensored and easily searchable posts that do the same thing exist?

Censorship doesn't have to be perfect to be real and to have real effects.

Still waiting for Giuliani to release that hunter Biden laptop evidence he's been claiming in his possession

I guess one question that comes up is that, has there ever been a time in history when the US government hadn’t lied to the American people and had an alternative agenda from the mainstream narrative / propaganda campaign.

And why should I believe now is any different?

I’ve already seen evidence of intentional misleading in the name of public health around Covid.

Not to mention just the incompetency of leadership.

Between incompetency and lack of integrity, I’m not very inspired to follow the leader.

Let's pretend for the moment that there isn't a single person in all of government who has integrity and every one of them would lie to you if it served their own ends. This is a global pandemic. Is every government everywhere corrupt? Actually, probably to some extent, yeah, but corrupt in the same way? Much less likely. Yet even if they are that's actually okay, because you don't have to trust them. You can instead listen to the the doctors, researchers, and experts who by overwhelming majority agree with each other.

You already know, because you've seen with your own eyes, that it isn't forbidden to talk about the risks of these vaccines. You're doing it right now. So are countless others and those endless examples don't all come from the lips of politicians and government workers.

You really are living in a rose-tinted reality, or being deliberately disingenuous. Of course we can talk about it now, the evidence is piling up enough that it can't be censored without it being obvious.

We're at the point now where all the 'smart' people are saying the 'stupid' conspiracy theorists and 'anti-vaxxers' got a lucky guess or were right by coincidence, because of course such smart people couldn't be fooled or have missed the evidence. So they defend their egos.

I do wonder if the professionals that had their reputations and credibility trashed earlier on when they were 'guessing it right' or 'fluking it' will get any apologies and be allowed to serve some humble pie... I doubt it, being wrong is a powerful thing to face, especially with the righteousness that came from 'being right.'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com