Bill Gates, and the other guy.

[Anonymous No.12670276]

Discuss this fuck and the other retard "Science communicator"
So many people are talking about "misinformation" etc, and I will now create a thread where I can rant about this and where others can discuss it too.

[Anonymous No.12670294]

>>12670276
>Discuss this fuck and the other retard "Science communicator"

About to watch the video. I expect it's going to point out how, as the pandemic got larger, leftists and classical rightwingers decided to lockdown, whereas altrighters went full retard and denied the virus even existed.
I expect they'll discuss how to combat the misinformation that led to the altrighters going full denial mode.
Also, I have had the virus (it was the worst illness I've had since I was about 14, and I'm in my late 20s now), my family had the virus, my aunt died from the virus, and my bachelors and masters are in medical science.

[Anonymous No.12670310]

>>12670294
I'm not opposed to the information they are stating, such as that masks are useful, and viral diseases can be prevented through a decrease in social and physical contact, what I am against is the blatant oversimplification of issues when related to scientific understanding, while still speaking of "searching for reliable sources" etc. People who "communicate" science to the general public are the ones who cause misinformation to spread. In an environment were everything is dumbed down, there are bound to be some people who question the information they are given. Furthermore, the people morally posturing over "conspiracy theorists", the average viewer of science communication channel has no say in this either. What is occuring is a trend of people saying "You're wrong, I heard it from my favorite science communicator", no papers, no articles, no evidence, no research. In practice, people are becoming vulnerable to thinking they are in the right as long as the person "communicating" something to them says it. People should, if they can't fully comprehend the topics discussed, rely more on experts, however they are in no way entitled to criticize those who receive their information in the same mechanism, however only different politically.

[Anonymous No.12670331]

>>12670294
I generally dislike science communication. On Gates, one can always be right when advocating for vaccination, but if the general populous is deceived into thinking that following anything this person, that science communicator and that politician says one should get vaccinated, it can be turned against people. A collective responsibility, and a call to listen to "communicators" rather than to learn about the concepts and reason for oneself through papers etc. is a danger to society. It models society in a way where a select few can manipulate the entire population into one belief. Historical examples can be drawn from every totalitarian state, in each case a situation of emergency is seized to gradually encroach more and more control on people. Nazi Germany: Reichstag fire, great depression, hyperinflation
Communist china: Agriculture and industrialization, saying that taking land from owners will help the nation.
Iran: Political unrest, and discontent with the Shah
These situations are used to bring people together as a collective, and therefore make them more vulnerable to totalitarian rule.

[Anonymous No.12670350]

>>12670310
So if you can't trust studies what can you trust?

[Anonymous No.12670353]

>>12670294
I also dislike the misinterpretation of what the problem is that lead to misinformation being spread. Social media itself. Social media doesn't have to censor those posts, no, I think that would encroach on freedom, I think social media should be abolished as a whole, and that the average person should not be brainwashed into believing certain people, "It's science, bro?" "Don't you believe in science?" All of these questions did not exist when the public, who did not have the access to some person explaining something to them, were generally less interconnected. The blind following of the church, the personality cults of dictatorships, they all resemble what is becoming of communicating science to the public in a manner that doesn't involve scientific philosophy or reason, but acceptance as fact. The vast majority of people won't even read the sources, they will simply be reassured by the words of the communicator. Take the pope, the catholic church or any institution which before the reformation communicated the bible and the word of god to the public. They were able to do whatever they wanted with that power, until the reformation established the protestant church and allowed the public to read the bible for themselves with translation. The same applies to communicators. There often are no disagreements among communicators, one never sees ASAPscience, those assholes, disagree with Veritasium, Veritasium never disagree with Minutephysics etc.
Without communicating and actively encouraging people to think about the philosophy of natural and human sciences, you get a crowd of cold robots, whose only objective it is to be fed more communicated, and therefore dumbed-down, information.

[Anonymous No.12670359]

>>12670310
>People who "communicate" science to the general public are the ones who cause misinformation to spread. In an environment were everything is dumbed down, there are bound to be some people who question the information they are given.
I agree. This is why I largely dislike discussing science with normies, and why I dislike popsci. I have a relative who is antivax, and when we discussed some things it becomes apparent to me that he knows almost no chemistry, almost no physics, almost no biology. Yet he is asking me about mercury in vaccines, how am I supposed to explain chemical bonds to him? he asks me how we even know atoms exist, how am I supposed to explain to him rutherfords gold foil experiment? or einsteins statistical mechanics of brownian motion. He asks me about the immune system and autoimmunity, how am I supposed to explain light and heavy chains? vdj recombination? clonal expansion? t-cell education? I can't explain all this stuff to him in a relatively short amount of time, this is stuff i had to study over several years and would probably take weeks to bring him up to speed on the relevant parts, and I'm just not interested in explaining this stuff to him. He has one kid, living in the UK, where herd immunity will probably protect the kid. And personally I would like for the kid to grow up and learn about vaccines, then realize their father was retarded. If your parents are stupid then its a pretty useful lesson to learn at a young age, and this antivax stuff will probably be a useful indicator for them.
>>>cont

[Anonymous No.12670360]

>>12670350
I'm not saying don't trust studies, I'm saying don't criticize others before you yourself have a grounded and nuanced understanding of the subject itself. What I am also arguing is that people should not rely on communicators, not lose trust in them, but always question it. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.12670362]

>>12670359
>>12670310
>the people morally posturing over "conspiracy theorists", the average viewer of science communication channel has no say in this either.
I also dislike normies who just luck their way into being on the right side. For example, other parts of my family will virtue signal about being against antivax. But if i ask them to explain how vaccines work in literally any amount of detail (beyond the most superficial) they will be unable to. This is why I ignore their opinions on almost every topic. For example, around a year ago they were trying to tell me some dumb pseudoscience to do with medicine (before the pandemic started).
>>>cont

[Anonymous No.12670364]

>>12670359
>>12670362
>>12670310

>People should, if they can't fully comprehend the topics discussed, rely more on experts, however they are in no way entitled to criticize those who receive their information in the same mechanism, however only different politically.
When it comes to the pandemic in particular, I'm unaware of any legitimate expert who denied the virus existed. I'm aware that there was a whole controversy about whether masks work or whether travel should be shut down. My limited understanding is they didn't want to cause a run on masks, for example there were supermarket shortages in the UK due to panic buying. When it came to restricting travel, china seemed to have been covering up the severity of the epidemic, and so it seemed to lend itself to premature partisan attempt to keep the borders open or to close them.
But with that caveat said, I think most normies are unable to evaluate who is actually an expert. For example: since I'm in the field I can evaluate who is a reasonably informed individual on vaccines, yet I've seen non-experts who are able to fake an air of expertise by being confident about their opinions. Since most normies know nothing about the topic, they don't know what the faker is missing. Then again, these normies also aren't able to determine legitimate experts from fakers, so you are right that retarded normies (ie most normies) just go along party lines. That's why trying to figure out how to prevent misinformation is important. It just so happens that in this case it was right wing disinformation. But it could easily be left wing disinformation in the future

[Anonymous No.12670382]

>>12670359
Correct, I believe however, also in the importance of Social disintegration, those who are intelligent enough should be able to decide, and so should those who aren't. BUT stupid people should not be made to think they are intelligent because of the things they see from some communicator. Science should be left to those who are dedicated enough to persue it, not explained to those who aren't and who just want to seem intelligent. It is one of the greater problems in our society that those who are only capable of living simple lives, those who would have been feudal serfs, are being made into proto-intelligent people. They might understand some things, but they don't know why, instead they were told by a teacher, and repeated it and just happen to be right. I despise the modern interpretation of what serves the greater good for people. It's not return to primitive or agricultural society, It's regulate what people can and can not do, and striking from school to have politicians do everything for you, and have a bunch of mindless vassals applaud you(((Greta)))), it's not change the conditions so that people are less susceptible to depression, anxiety and social problems, it's give them medication and let them function in the system. It's not think about why you are saying something, your beliefs etc, it's science communication and TV programming. This applies to all disciplines, history, economics, politics etc.

[Anonymous No.12670383]

>>12670331
I think you're somewhat correct. The ideal would be to have everyone be an expert on everything. However that is almost impossible (currently). It also needs to be noted that for a lot of people if you only partly educate them then they'll perform more retarded acts, since the partial education increases their confidence. For example McArthur Wheeler put lemon juice on his face and went to rob a bank, because he learned lemon juice can be used as invisible ink.
On a side note. This is partly why, I think, the altrighters were the incorrect ones here. Because most lazy left and right wingers dont think about vaccines or viruses much, and so dont feel confident on their opinions and just do what everyone else is doing. Whereas these altrighters are already primed to be confident in their incorrect opinions.
Back to the main point. Either we adequately educate everyone, which is expensive, difficult and time consuming. Or we find an alternative. A simpler, cheaper and quicker alternative is only allowing accurate information to circulate; essentially, combat misinformation.
Like you said, this has its own problems.

[Anonymous No.12670393]

>>12670353
>Without communicating and actively encouraging people to think about the philosophy of natural and human sciences, you get a crowd of cold robots, whose only objective it is to be fed more communicated, and therefore dumbed-down, information.

Like I mention here, >>12670383, only being partly informed is also a problem.
I'm not entirely against social media. I do think the design to be addicting and to increase engagement is a problem, but that regulation could arguably fix the problem, though im pessimistic.

[Anonymous No.12670397]

>>12670276
>Discuss this fuck and the other retard "Science communicator"
Veritasium seems like a legit guy to me

>So many people are talking about "misinformation" etc
Misinformation is a real thing. See: retards on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.12670405]

>>12670382
I'd agree with your general sentiment. Except I think climate change is feasible, and is occurring. But regardless of that point: what is the utility of using limited resources to educate people to make the right decisions, when those people can just be conditioned to make the right decisions and then the resources can be used in a more useful manner. The end outcome (such as vaccination rates, infection rates, etc) is roughly comparable in either case. I personally would prefer a sort of technological acceleration where whatever means are ethical are used to increase tech advancement at a quicker rate. Imagine if we had robotic labor, then pandemics would be easy as fuck, and we could educate people to be experts in multiple fields

[Anonymous No.12670409]

>>12670364
I might have phrased it weirdly. What I meant is the mechanism of information is the same on both sides, mindless science believers and mindless christians, or whatever other comparable ideology exists. Experts serve to say why something is important, but they can always be wrong. The Nazis modeled their disgusting eugenics as science, and so did most other states in earlier times. The science communicator people are the ones who create more idiots, yet they boast about being morally correct. Furthermore, the advances of for example, Koch and Pastuer, were of great relevance to the majority of the population, they understood, in practice, that their lives would be improved because of hygiene etc. But the same can not be said about viral diseases. One is bound to question something when you are forced to do it or pay a fine for over half a year, there is a difference between authoritative action, which people such as science communicators and Bill Gates support, and educating people from the get go. Encouraging them to think critically, keeping kids away from social media and phones etc. But also teaching scientific understanding, then assigning those children to further investigate why something is true, and ask questions. The model of the system is what fosters misinformation, not people simply "not getting the science"
EVERYONE WHO SAYS SOMEONE IS AN IDIOT FOR QUESTIONING A GOVERNMENT FORCING YOU TO STAY INSIDE AND WEAR MASKS FOR ALMOST A YEAR IS AN IDIOT THEMSELVES.

Again, masks work, but there are papers that explain why, and people should be educated into understanding how to read papers and question information. At least the majority of the population that live in the cities, where viral diseases are spread most, because they were the same people who in January and February ignored it, then in April scrutanized people for not staying inside "Look at this Karen lol" "Save lives" etc.
Snowden actually addressed this in his JRE, when it came to the

[Anonymous No.12670422]

>>12670397
The discussion so far seems to be more about how popsci communicators just lead to conditioned normies, similar to how propaganda and misinformation leads to conditioned normies (of a different flavour; altright in this case).

I used to like veritasium when I was younger, and my early years of undergrad. But as I got more capable I was able to delve more deeply into topics by emulating the paths that experts take. Generally that is to find a syllabus or list of books or lectures online from a good university (usually MIT open courseware or cambridge university), read the books and etc until I can read papers, then read actual journal articles. That's how I branch out from the medical field into math and other fields I'm not formally trained in.
But when you become capable enough, and well informed enough, you start to have a disdain for pop-sci for being inaccurate, and normies who consume pop-sci and then bother you about it. In fact, that's largely why almost everyone I talk to in real life are also science students, or study fields deeply.
For example, if you have ever had family force something retarded on you because they were confident in their retarded opinions then you will likely appreciate why a lot of people dislike partially informed normoids

[Anonymous No.12670430]

>>12670405
Correct, and there is evidence to suggest why. But dramatization is a thing. Greta Thunberg, fearmongering etc. But again, promotion of absolute truth is far more widespread than denial. That will create a problem, the problem being collective identity, as I said in >>12670331

[Anonymous No.12670431]

>>12670422
Thanks for condensing it, it would take a while to get the context.

[Anonymous No.12670447]

>>12670409
I agree on mindless science or religion believers. I agree on people trying to cherrypick scientific sources to support their opinions being bad, or trying to promote their ideas as scientific. I don't particularly care about virtue signaling by science communicators, though I would care if it had a negative effect on things that are useful (to me) like community vaccination rates.
I do think we should improve education (partly because I benefit personally from more tech advancement, like i said here >>12670405). I somewhat agree about social media, but I think that has more to do with engagement algorithms than misinformation itself. Misinformation still spreads outside social media, and probably algorithms could be generated to increase information vs disinformation if we disincentivize algorithms to maximize engagement to maximize ad dollars.
Yeah, blindly believing what the government says is also retarded.

If you have better alternatives to what we have now, then itd be interesting to discuss. But I dont think just educating people somewhat more (but still not adequately) will do much good. I also dont think banning social media would go down great. We'd just be stuck with the old MSN messenger days, but with smart phones and laptops.

[Anonymous No.12670451]

>>12670431
no problem bruh

[Anonymous No.12670454]

>>12670405
I never denied any aspect of climate change, but I am going to address that quickly.
When you have the majority of the widespread, corporate media arguing for the same thing, social media spreading the same message retarded influencers like mrbeast talking about climate change etc. You are seeing a general increase in proponents of Anthropogenic climate change. But, the majority of them are fed the information through a filter. Someone does the deduction for them, which they should do themselves. Science doesn't tell us not to piss against a fence, it tells us urine is a good conductor.
The problem is more becoming basedence being fed to normies, some of those normies becoming fed up and resorting to equally dumbed down information from an opposed political perspective. The intitial condition is what brings people to conspire about Bill Gates, what brought people to that point? A polarizing culture, overwhelmingly filtered and condensed information etc.
Its like a vegetarian butcher, the concepts can NOT coexist. Either you dumb things down, create a media consensus, and therefore a social consensus, or you have a society which has some intelligent people and a lot of simple people, who don't care about being intelligent, they just live their life. That is what it was like until media and social media came along. It's like when my entire class is talking about researching properly, and about climate change when we have TOK, an IB thing, but they cant name a single meteorology, geology or physics paper which suggests their argument. People who can't think shouldn't be telling others that they can't think.

[Anonymous No.12670470]

>>12670430
>That will create a problem, the problem being collective identity.
Yeah, I can see that being quite a big problem. In a lot of cases, though, the medium by which new problems arise were solutions to old problems.
Nowadays I can talk to (or get an understanding of) people from different places and mindsets and opinions, that (pre-social media, youtube, etc) I wouldn't encounter in real life. This guy writes a good post on it https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/.. Essentially, he geographically overlaps people who are different from him in terms of beliefs, but his social group contains hardly any people with different beliefs, simply due to social dynamics, not by deliberate choice.
Nowadays I can see that a Q-anon believer isnt that different from me. Or some poor shit in a 3rd world eastern european country isnt that differemt. But the means of that solution lead to misinformation.
Again, I think better tech will solve these problems. ie automated labor, automated research, automated education, automated disinformation screening, etc.

[Anonymous No.12670476]

>>12670447
Alternatives: there are none. If you have a society which subjects people to such conditions from their young years, they can't escape. The only thing is to make a stand against them by disrupting their bubble, spreading memes, disliking videos, and confronting them when you can. Also read uncle ted's manifesto. He explains it well, but again, don't trust him entirely either, he does make good points though, especially in regards to freedom, media, and social issues, not entirely with technology though.

[Anonymous No.12670483]

>>12670422
If it wasn't for popsci then you might not have gotten interested in science in the first place.

Put it this way. I'm somewhat capable at playing the drums, I've played them for a long time. But I don't go around hating on people who are beginners on the drums. That would be arrogant and stupid. All the power to them, I think.

Same with popsci. You're just being arrogant by hating on beginners in science.

[Anonymous No.12670489]

>>12670454
>I never denied any aspect of climate change, but I am going to address that quickly.
I was just briefly mentioning climate change since you mentioned greta.

I wouldn't agree that people wouldn't care about pretending or falsely believing themselves to be intelligent and/or well informed if we didnt have social media. At least as far back as the greeks, we had philosophers and sophists, where sophists made clever but incorrect arguments to advance their interests. There were people who would put black paste on their teeth because the rich had black teeth from eating expensive high sugar foods. Before social media, when I was a child and early teen, there were still a lot of pretenders. Intelligent people are often portrayed favorably in movies and tv. So are strong aggressive action heroes. And as intelligence becomes more important for economic success, we're going to see more pretenders. Since economic success is something women look for in men. If a person can't actually be intelligent and well informed, then they'll pretend or delude themselves. Which means there will be some economic niche that feeds those delusions.
You may think that getting rid of social media is the right idea. that would require government intervention to make that economic niche non-feasible. My opinion is to simply change the incentive structure so that we use social media for good instead of profit (and inadvertently bad)

[Anonymous No.12670500]

>>12670483
For the most part, I am not hating the people who are beginners in science, more power to them, but the people who act as if they are better than others who easily can be compared to them. Read the stuff, then you'll get the context of what I'm saying. If you're a beginner in science, you shouldn't be watching this stuff, most actually dedicated beginners start by reading books etc.
How has the process of being self-taught become so dumb, it actively prevents those seeking information to receive it. Ramanujan, Faraday etc. Taught themselves, they were beginners too, however they managed to learn things and contribute to science through action. You can not compare these things, at all. Beginner has become, from what you interpret based on what I was addressing, a morally posturing asshole who blindly follows science communicators without learning about the philosophy or reasoning process of science.

[Anonymous No.12670501]

>>12670483
I got interested in science because I saw house md on tv. I dont know if thats popsci or not, but probably. But I was 13 at the time. That's the audience for simplified science. These popsci videos and books are on the level of teenage thinking (for the most part). If you get adults to believe they are well informed when they read or watch pop-sci, then it is bad (imo). But pop-sci isnt bad (imo) for children when its equivalent to what they learn in school

[Anonymous No.12670514]

>>12670483
>Put it this way. I'm somewhat capable at playing the drums, I've played them for a long time. But I don't go around hating on people who are beginners on the drums. That would be arrogant and stupid. All the power to them, I think.
>Same with popsci. You're just being arrogant by hating on beginners in science.
Also, continuing my post (>>12670501). I don't hate beginners in science. I hate people who dont try to go beyond the surface. So I'm fine with people who arent yet adults talking about popsci.
In fact I tutored some kids at one point and I'm writing some books that are intended to provide a path for absolute beginners diving deeply into math and medical research. I don't think I would be doing that if I hated beginners in general or wanted to feel superior.
What I dislike, as I mentioned in an earlier post, are people like my cousin. He is using his limited understanding and confidence to refuse vaccinating his child. When I was a child, my parents didnt take me to a doctor because they thought they knew better, but they have no medical training at all. These are the kinds of people I dislike, stupid but confident. I think popsci makes people confident without fixing the stupid

Also, this is not me>>12670500

[Anonymous No.12670520]

>>12670476
The Thad Inmendham
>realizes life is suffering
>realizes nature doesn't care about animals either
>knows omnicide is the only solution

[Anonymous No.12670521]

>>12670489
>Before social media, when I was a child and early teen, there were still a lot of pretenders
It's natural for children to overestimate their ability.
But it is becoming more widespread because any idiot can now claim what they want, they all have a platform.
>>12670501
> But pop-sci isnt bad (imo) for children when its equivalent to what they learn in school
kind of. I mean both school and popsci are not good for talented children. One is too rigorous and punitive, the other makes people who can merely blindly remember get better grades than people with higher understanding of subjects. There is nothing wrong showing these things to kids until 5, but over the age a child can read, they should switch to books, and train their reading, furthermore, the overwhelming amount of youtube popsci is watched by teens. Problem? These kids are at an age where they can read, write, think, and act for themselves. They have at least a brain developed to the extent that it can think critically, yet they are becoming more preoccupied with extreme surrogate activities: Social media, listening to music etc. they become used to quick, rapid dopamine, but they read less, and they watch less full length documentaries. Instead, they want the information condensed. If it takes less effort for a person to attain knowledge in terms of concepts, they can not train their brain for the "hard" things facing them. They lose their dedication. So the less effort something requires, the more they are placed in a bubble that is suddenly popped when they reach university or profession.

[Anonymous No.12670523]

>>12670310
>>12670331
>>12670353
>>12670360
>>12670382
>>12670409
>>12670430
>>12670454
>>12670476
To clarify, this was all me, OP.

[Anonymous No.12670533]

Off topic for one second, youtube is removing dislikes, check the OP image, and now look at this one, or even look at the video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grv1RJkdyqI

[Anonymous No.12670559]

>>12670276
Why teh fuck are they interviewing Bill Gates about vaccines? He's not a fucking doctor. He's a retired billionaire who made his money driving competition out of business with fraudulant and anticompetitive behaviours. He's on record for saying he wants to reduce American population so other countries can live better. Fucking traitor.

[Anonymous No.12670579]

>>12670521
>But it is becoming more widespread because any idiot can now claim what they want, they all have a platform.
Yes. And I would agree that removing social media by government enforcement could fix the problem. But I think that is going too far.
I actually mostly only see older people who make mistakes about science due to overconfidence, but that doesnt mean it isnt also in young people.
I also knew someone who was underage on 4chan, and they competed in international science olympiads, sat in grad math classes whilst a HS student, and are now at MIT probably age 22 now.
I do see how social media and popsci could be a problem, I just dont have any real data on the topic, and I cant just trust my anecdotal evidence or trust that a plausible explanation without evidence.
Its the kind of lazy thinking that had people say "now we have books, the youth wont ever try to remember anything", "magazines will rot your brain", "TV is going to rot your brain", "videogames will wrote your brain", "internet will rot your brain". It's useful to recognise the alarmist tendencies in human nature, then use that to check your own beliefs.
If I saw data that indicated all possible forms of social media are bad, then id agree to ban it. But I dont have that data, and the more reasonable approach is to change only the part that is bad (as indicated by data)

[Anonymous No.12670588]

>>12670533
>Off topic for one second, youtube is removing dislikes, check the OP image, and now look at this one, or even look at the video!
Sounds quite alarmist to assume dislikes are being removed. It could be a caching problem, or bots dislikes being removed when they get banned, or any host of other reasonable explanations

[Anonymous No.12670600]

>>12670559
>Why teh fuck are they interviewing Bill Gates about vaccines?
Because bill gates is a philanthropist who uses his money to fund medical research, such as finding a vaccine for malaria.
>>12670559
>He's on record for saying he wants to reduce American population so other countries can live better
Funnily enough, I know a black person who says bill gates wants to reduce the african population because his stepfather (my friends stepfather) told him the vaccines bill gates sends to africa cause sterility in a small but significant percentage of people.
Sounds to me like either you're as alarmist or misinformed as my friend, or bill gates is based as fuck for trying to reduce global population.

[Anonymous No.12670609]

>>12670588
Youtube will remove dislikes on hot, relevant videos if they are deemed "illegitimate".

How a dislike is decided to be illegitimate is hard to say, but I guess opening a video just to dislike it and then closing it could be one example. Other could be obvious bot accounts.

[Anonymous No.12670624]

>>12670609
>Youtube will remove dislikes on hot, relevant videos if they are deemed "illegitimate".
I once opened a video, and when I was done I saw I had disliked it. I assume I misclicked on dislike, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume some dislikes are illegitimate. such as a dislike before the video even starts. In which case illegitimate likes and dislikes could be removed, but legitimate likes are added faster, so refreshing looks like only dislikes are removed.
Thats just my speculation. I don't know shit about it lmao

[Anonymous No.12670671]

>>12670579
I oppose any form of government intervention in anything.
Nothing is rotting brains. But I think that a lack of effort removes people's ability to face challenges actively.
Btw I am in my teenage years, I am not complaining about the youth, afterall I am a young person, I am complaining about the way it(social media) is moving, towards faster and faster content. Not even in terms of loading speed, but in terms of the content itself.
I'll check on this thread later, but I can't respond for a few hours now. Got to relax

[Anonymous No.12670696]

>>12670331
>rather than to learn about the concepts and reason for oneself through papers etc.
Bullshit. Do you think even scientists outside of that specific discipline can follow technical vaccines research documents let alone the general public?

[Anonymous No.12670697]

>>12670624
Imo brigaded dislikes are illegitimate too, at least in some cases. For example, if a game developer says something politically controversial and a group dislikes the game for that reason, those dislikes should be considered illegitimate.

If the dislikes are for a reason that is not relevant to the disliked product (be it video, game, book) and its content, they should be removed.

[Anonymous No.12670711]

>>12670276

[Anonymous No.12670721]

YOU VILL EAT ZE BUGS
YOU VILL LIVE IN PODS

You VILL be chipped by Bill Gates
You VILL get ze Bill Gates's Mark of the Beast

You VILL never go to Space
You VILL STAY in Earth FOREVER
You VILL NEVER GO TO MARS

You VILL wear ze Mask
You VILL take ze Vaccine
You VILL obey ze authorities
You VILL have no freedom or privacy
You VILL accept ze Propaganda
You VILL pay high taxes.
You VILL have a social credit score
You VILL rent your clothes

You VILL be sterilized, feminized and lobotomized

You VILL own nothing and you VILL be Happy

[Anonymous No.12670737]

>>12670600
Giving money to md research doesnt give you an authority over medical decision. Heck everyone here gives tax money to medical research. Everyone paying thousands every year in insurance funds the entire medical industry.

[Anonymous No.12670767]

>>12670671
If you want social media gone, how do you achieve that without government interference? Either you take a minority of people and use force, which i assume is something you wouldn't like since its a small group imposing their will on others. On the other side, you take a majority of people and use whatever means, which is analogous to a democracy/government. The intention of a government is to do the things that most people want to be done, though real world governments dont always achieve that goal due to human flaws and the inability to poll everyone on every question.

An economic niche exists that allows social media to exist. If you don't want social media to exist and you dont want to use force or consensus, then maybe you want to persuade other people and build a consensus or build a social movement, which again has the same problem of sucking people in who aren't informed. Or you replace social media with a more competitive model which is more utilitarian. Or any other number of ineffective or equally morally questionable solutions

[Anonymous No.12670781]

>>12670737
>Giving money to md research doesnt give you an authority over medical decision
I didn't suggest that at all. Nice bad faith argument.
I was saying he funds medical research, which an intelligent person would understand means: He learns about medicine so he can decide where his money will make a difference, and he chose medicine because he has an interest in it, and he has the resources to learn more about it so he probably does since it would be retarded to invest millions of dollars in something you dont understand.
Then an intelligent person could check this hypothesis by watching talks gates has given on medicine and medical research.
Then your question would be answered.

Then again, you asked the original question when you could have just googled it, so maybe I was expecting too much from you

[Anonymous No.12671120]

>>12670409
I really agree with that sentiment. It pains me when to see this whole "how do we stop misinformation" debate among people who I otherwise consider to be on the "correct" side, whatever that means. It's like they don't even try to understand the other side, and don't seem to realise there is a whole symmetry in everything they're saying, such that the core of their argumentation about misinformation has an equivalent formaluation that is made by the very people they are critiscing.
And as result their solutions looks like trying to stop the symptoms instead of understanding the cause. When you have a social problem, I thought the first obvious step would be "Ok we've described an undesirable phenomenon in our system, why is it happening? What are the mechanism involved?", but I really feel like the whole discussion missed that step and went straight to "remove the unwanted thing". To me, trying to "vet" sources looks fundamentally hopeless and full of uninteded consequences, and a first intuition (very shallow and possibly wrong) would point at lacking awareness on cognitive bias. If that's the case, then like you said improving eduction on the scientific approach could help.
PS: I'm not sure I'm expressing myself correctly, so please read with leniency.

[Anonymous No.12671297]

[Anonymous No.12671326]

>>12670781
What a shit argument. Everyone paying for medicine is funding medical research. Everyone paying their insurance is paying for medical industry. Where is the intelligence in there? Its baseline.

>JUST GOOGLE BRO
Thats not helping your case in showing how Bill Gates should ever have an authority over efficacy of medical research. He's not a doctor. Anyone can say "dude vaccines" but that doesnt give them credence. Bill Gates saying it can be lumped up into the same category as Kanye West giving advice on what medicine to take for your children.

[Anonymous No.12671328]

>>12670781
Just stick with tax evasion. You sound less like a retard.

[Anonymous No.12671344]

>>12670697
>>12670609
>>12670624
What about brigaded likes? What is youtube doing about illegitimate likes? How about people that open a video, click like, and then back off.

Are dislikes the only statistic that is being manipulated by users (no), Does youtube provide any public stats or analytics towards brigading and what numbers they determine to be legitimate or not? (no)

There literally no point of having a dislike button if it doesn't mean anything. The whole point is just for users to 'vote' on the video they're watching.

If you ask me youtube is just manipulating numbers to push an agenda. Dislikes go down but never views, that means inherently they're only keeping 'positive' statistics and disregarding the ones they don't like. This is whats known as manipulation.

[Anonymous No.12672214]

>>12670310
>I consciously spread disinformation, to the point of denying that people lie on the internet.
>>12670409
>both sides
This shit again. Back to your board for another strategy session.

[Anonymous No.12672223]

>>12670276
>I asked Bill Gates What's the Next Crisis
10/10 phrasing. Veritasium is pretending to be a cuck when he's actually based and red pilled.

[Anonymous No.12672237]

>>12670276
No one with a functioning brain wants to hear your lukewarm no-wit takes, and dumb conspiracies.