Ask HN: Is censoring dissenting opinions about the lockdown a bad idea?

5 points by 10kresistor 6 years ago | 9 comments

Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc. censor dissenting opinions about the Coronavirus lockdown.

No doubt the people doing this believe they are doing a good thing. They no doubt believe they are protecting ourselves and others from our own stupidity.

People who want this lockdown no doubt think they understand something the rest of us do not. Except they don't.

The death toll of this virus needs ONLY be measured in percentages. Headlines about the thousands who have died only fuel panic. Example: 1000 people died in our County because of Coronavirus! Except our county has a million people. Coronavirus deaths are on the same order of magnitude as the flu, heart disease, obesity, suicide, etc. when taken in perspective even without the lockdown.

By censoring dissenting opinions we are adding fuel to the fire. We are getting people to ask for more control and more laws in the name of protection from a disease that we have drastically over reacted to.

Those who love rules and love being controlled are coming out of the woodwork. Dissenting opinions are not allowed (for your safety because you're too stupid to have a valid point of view). This country is heading straight towards third world status complete with mandatory face masks in public.

We've already passed the point where this was about the virus. From here on out this is about control. You have no access to information that the powers that be don't want you to have. Your opinion, your understanding, is incomplete and substituted with that of celebrities.

Please wake up and see that censorship like this is extremely destructive to the free society that we aspire to be. We need to tale a stand against censorship while we can still even remember what the before times were like.

I know many of you may not agree with my views on the cost/benefit of our reaction to this virus but I think we can all agree that we have to start standing up to censorship.

First they came for the Communists...

teovall 6 years ago |

No, it's not a bad idea. Take your crack pot anti-science rants elsewhere.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean companies have to give you a platform to say stupid shit. It just means the government can't stop you from saying (most) stupid shit.

You've been brainwashed by the ruling class to keep working like a good little slave.

They don't care about pain, death, suffering, and life-long complications. All they care about is getting even more filthy stinking obscenely rich. Why are you enabling them? Why are you spreading their message and doing their work for them? For the measly scraps they're feeding you?

10kresistor 6 years ago | |

> Take your crack pot anti-science rants elsewhere.

sigh. Which part is crackpot? Which part is anti-science? Can you please explain why you think that? I hope to convince you that I am not anti-science in the least. Rather, I think we are looking at this situation wrong.

db48x 6 years ago |

Yea, I agree. It's not the first step down that slippery slope, but it's a big one. If you care about being able to say what you really think, even when it's unpopular, you really have to host your own website on your own equipment.

ThrowawayR2 6 years ago |

If it were political censorship, that might be something to discuss but infectious diseases can spread to people regardless of what their politics are. Reality trumps beliefs every time.

10kresistor 6 years ago | |

Are they not preventing the right of individuals to organize?

ThrowawayR2 6 years ago | | |

Public safety of innocent third-parties trumps the right of individuals to organize.

Were the disease only to sicken those who congregated and not spread from them, I would have very little objection to allowing them to do so.

salawat 6 years ago |

I'm glad you're showing concern. I don't think I'm equipped to take any particular side, because I can clearly see an argument for both courses of action, with the only differentiator being your order of priorities with regards to realizing a commitment to an ideal.

If you happen to prioritize the ideal of equality in all things; including mindshare/being heard, then of course the answer to your question is no.

If you prioritize the minimization of loss of life within a particular timescale however, the answer could be both yes or no; a fact that I think leads to most of the controversy on this topic.

For instance, those prioritizing minimization of loss of life due to viral spread and lack of treatment would not be interested in hearing about you wanting things to open things back up, not condoning contact tracing, etc. as that runs completely counter to trying to minimize the rate of spread in the immediate term. It is something that can be done now, while the unknowns get figured out, and we have faith that the best and brightest amongst us are doing their best to make it happen as quickly as possible. Efforts to disrupt that societal momentum to them are something to be minimized.

Those who have concern in regards to the capacity of the economic system to change in order to meaningfully accommodate the necessary change in circumstances created by the massive disruption to the underlying assumptions on which the previous Market's optimizations were based, and who are concerned that this abrupt transition may cost lives via increases in crime/joblessness/homelessness/systemic collapse combined with catastrophic failure of the societal infrastructure requisite to coordinate the efforts of everyone in ways that help sustain everyone at a higher standard of living than an every-man-for-himself arrangement can? They may see a viable direction in not censoring protests of the lockdown approach, and opening things back up for the sake of trying to limit the damage done. Which, by the way, makes that type of person extremely distasteful to the first group.

To someone more interested in just having everyone make their own decisions, and wishing that there was a mandate that employer's must honor an employee's wishes to comply with lockdown; but that there was no restraint other than due diligence on those that wish to try to keep the economic machine going and in the process of change? I see value to both sides getting first-class attention. I'm convinced we're going to be saddled with this thing for a long time, so I don't feel that brutal, immediate short term measures are necessarily going to do a great job at keeping things stable. On the other hand, we're definitely in a situation that carries with it a very real and tangible health risk, that I have no wish to sacrifice people on the altar of continuity of the previous economic status quo in order to sustain.

Evaluate, measure your risk, do as you wilt, accept the responsibility for the outcome, and don't begrudge others for the decisions they make in doing the same. It is really the only sensible way forward. I really don't care if all that "wealth" out there disappears in a flash as the economy bounces back down to more reasonable intrinsic values. I just hope everyone is willing to get along with, take care of, and treat each other with dignity and respect.

Then again, that's what I thought we were doing all along, and boy, did I have that wrong. So, take it or leave it I guess.

It certainly doesn't help that we're in the midst of a national crisis in terms of credibility management. Civic trust/civic institutions being demonstrably worthy of significant trust would be nice.

pinkfoot 6 years ago |

> First they came for the Communists...

When do they come for the innumerate conspiracy theorists?

10kresistor 6 years ago | |

What conspiracy?