Peter Daszak of Eco Health Alliance Faces Calls to Quit(newsweek.com) |
Peter Daszak of Eco Health Alliance Faces Calls to Quit(newsweek.com) |
> A Freedom of Information Request has shown that Daszak organized a letter to squash rumors that COVID leaked from a lab, in a way that did not link back to collaborations between WIV and EHA. Before his organizing role was revealed, Daszak called the lab leak theory terms such as "preposterous," "baseless," and "pure baloney," and claimed the WIV wasn't culturing viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2.
> It later emerged that WIV had been working with RaTG13, one of the closest know relatives of SARS-CoV-2. Daszak had denied WIV had been actively working on RatG13, telling Wired: "We thought it's interesting, but not high-risk... So we didn't do anything about it and put it in the freezer."
I'm surprised the calls are only that he resign. He should be under criminal investigation for unleashing one of the most disruptive contagions in human history.
It's easy to design a system that prevents the flagging in this particular case, but will it be better overall?
I feel that it's quite inevitable in a community like HN for this theory to get flagged. It's undesirable, but the alternative is worse.
Why? Because at its core, the HN community is a polite, considerate one. We try to apply the charitable interpretation when possible.
The postings about the lab-leak theory could be interpreted in a charitable way too, but unfortunately, the lab-leak theory has a dark undercurrent: "China is bad". Of course, lots of people on HN are smart enough to understand that the lab leak was a joint China-US fiasco (of stupendous proportions). But they also understand that these nuances will be lost in translation. "China bad" is the only thing that comes out.
For more than half a year there were numerous attacks on Asian people in the US. This was not just a theoretical exercise, it resulted in actual hate in the US.
So flagging the lab-leak postings was in line with the HN's tendency to go for the charitable interpretation.
It's an unbiased document that has aged pretty well, IMO.
FWIW, I also think many (not all) of the tweets from @EthicalSkeptic have aged well. But he's definitely not for everyone (and his - or their - pseudonymity does reduce trust, regardless of how understandable it is in this climate... after all, I'm using a pseudonym for the same reasons!).
You can’t make this up. Then they wonder how/why the people lost the trust in the institutions.
It's amazing how easy it is to control the narrative. Just plant a couple seeds at the highest level of media organizations and the journalists/social media companies, etc. do the social policing themselves.
"Calls to Quit"? Sounds serious. By how many people? More than 10? No?
I’ve lost interest in HN because there are no new things I can learn. It’s the same anti-car thread after anti-car thread.
To the people we're debating with, yes! That doesn't mean everyone needs to have wide-eyed naivety about every possible person, institution or event that could be discussed.
> the lab-leak theory has a dark undercurrent: "China is bad".
> So flagging the lab-leak postings was in line with the HN's tendency to go for the charitable interpretation.
This is a useful case study of why so many people have a problem with wokeness: "we can't allow any criticism of the Chinese government because someone, somewhere, might do generalize to all Chinese and do something bad". That's destructive to intellectual curiousity and honesty of all kinds.
Anyway it doesn't seem like the best possible explanation. It wasn't just China-related stuff like that which got reliably flagged and downvoted. It's anything that criticized any aspect of the response, unless the criticism was insufficiently aggressive response.
A different attempt: HN has many people who owe their status in society to confidence in the academic/scientific system. Anything that brings that system into disrepute gets attacked. Same pattern is seen on discussions of vaccines, climate change, anything where there is allegation of bad behaviors by public sector researchers or people who justify their stance through caring about the collective future. Ideology is also corrupting. A very common response to people posting evidence of problems with the natural origin theory or other non-COVID scientific dogmas is "that link is to a right wing site so I won't look at it at all". The justification for it being a right wing site? That it contains criticism of government science, a perfect ideological catch 22.
A simple alternative is to make people select one of a handful of reasons for flagging, and if the selected reason doesn't seem justifiable, those people lose flagging privs.
A version of this idea was discussed when the flagging feature was introduced [1]:
A flag is enough. People around here are pretty smart. The reasons why will mostly be obvious.
It's in place right now, except for the selected reason. If the flagging does not seem justifiable, those people lose flagging rights. It's a tough call on the moderators though.
Is there a way to crowdsource the decision? Without increasing too much the complexity? Quite unlikely.
My take: HN is the best there is. It's not perfect, but few things in life are perfect.
I don't think that belief worked out there. I browse with showdead turned on. Many, many stories end up dead and it's often very unclear why. For comments you can usually guess but that guess is never more precise than "this upsets some people a lot" which is almost tautological. You can speculate about what exactly upsets them, but it becomes only pop psychology, and anyway, hiding whole discussions because some people didn't like it even if it was polite and intelligent goes against the stated goals of the site. It actually incentivizes people to shoot the messenger.
Do you think it is culturally okay in Communist China to admit wrongdoing? Hint hint, it isn't.