Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If sources aren't directly promoting harm, i.e. don't take the vaccine it will kill you-and has clauses:

1. Opinionated source
2. Not intended to be used as medical advice
3. RF doesn't (legally) endorse opinions of it's members

Members should know not to use social media to confirm anything.

Unless maybe it's a customer service type thing to go with the majority to attract and keep members.

I mean no disrespect to members, but one thing that the age of the Web has demonstrated is that surprisingly few people actually check the sources of what they go on to believe whole-heartedly. It's very unfortunate, but it is true.

That is, in many cases, why there are such things as mods and staff -- to at least to screen out of some of the absolute nonsense. Will they ever get absolutely all of it? No, of course not. But it never hurts to try.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hi, all,

The staff are currently in the process of revising our policy regarding how to address COVID-related misinformation. We would like to know what the members think of our current policy, as this may help us in the process of revision.

This is the current policy: New Policy Regarding Posting Misinformation About The Coronavirus

Please note that the revised policy will still prohibit dangerous misinformation such as anti-mask posts or encouraging other members to avoid vaccines, masks, or other precautionary measures as advised by medical consensus. However, the allowed sources may extend beyond just the WHO and the CDC, among other changes.

Due to the character limit for poll questions, I will post the options in the OP and number them for voting purposes:

Option #1: The current policy is outdated/too restrictive.

Option #2: The current policy is fine as it is.

Option #3: The policy should allow information from any sources outside of the CDC and the WHO.

Option #4: The policy should allow information outside of the CDC and the WHO, but only from reputable sources (as determined by staff) even if it actively contradicts mainstream medical consensus.​

Also, please note that you can vote for more than one answer.

Thank you for your feedback,

Debater Slayer, on behalf of the RF staff.

I'm figuring it's a failsafe to prevent possible litigation from occurring.

I don't personally like the covid forum being restricted in speech and opinion if it happens to be against vaccination or denial of the virus, but I understand the potential legal ramifications and hesitation.

I'd rather see a disclaimer personally though clearly stated it is not the opinion or endorsement of the forum and see those restrictions removed as a suggestion.

 

[Quagmire]

Thanks Quagmire, but I'm not as slow on the uptake as you think. I understand exactly what the point of the post is.

In that case, a lot of what you posted in this thread doesn't make any sense to me. For instance:

And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?

And to be honest I feel like the last half an hour I just spent trying to clarify things was pretty much a waste of time.

I mean, if you really understand the op, you could have just voted for number four, explained why, and left it at that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm figuring it's a failsafe to prevent possible litigation from occurring.

I don't personally like the covid forum being restricted in speech and opinion if it happens to be against vaccination or denial of the virus, but I understand the potential legal ramifications and hesitation.

I'd rather see a disclaimer personally though clearly stated it is not the opinion or endorsement of the forum and see those restrictions removed as a suggestion.

I think it would be infinitely better to just require those who claim either the vaccines are unsafe or that the virulence of the virus is false should simply provide their sources -- reputable, peer-reviewed sources.

It might be of interest to consider why that doesn't seem to happen. (Hint: I suggest it's because there are no such sources to be cited.)

 

[Quagmire]

I'm figuring it's a failsafe to prevent possible litigation from occurring.

Nope, that's not it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think it would be infinitely better to just require those who claim either the vaccines are unsafe or that the virulence of the virus is false should simply provide their sources -- reputable, peer-reviewed sources.

It might be of interest to consider why that doesn't seem to happen. (Hint: I suggest it's because there are no such sources to be cited.)

Probably because it hasn't been long enough yet for a proper peer review process to be studied in depth. It's been barely two years.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Probably because it hasn't been long enough yet for a proper peer review process to be studied in depth. It's been barely two years.

That's odd, because the vaccines have all been thoroughly peer reviewed -- and they are newer than the virus they are meant to defeat.

 

[sun rise]

Here is one of my favorites, from the leader of the U.S. government: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?

Lies by politicians for political purposes should I think be allowed as long as they're labeled as such.

How do you do that when majority if provaxxers feel the unvax are killing people?

That's not a fact statement but an opinionated one.

It is a fact statement. Did you not see the post I made about someone dying because they could not get in for treatment at 43 hospitals because they were all filled with unvaccinated Covid patients?

And there have been close calls as well such as the boy who could have died because his appendix ruptured as he was waiting due to a hospital full of unvaccinated Covid patients.

This illustrates an ethical question: when a person asserts a personal right and the cause of that is the death of another, what do religious and ethical systems have to say. Presumably a thread about that question can be created in a non-Covid thread with Covid as an example.

 

[Revoltingest]

Option #4 is most useful (given the danger of the pandemic).

 

[Quagmire]

Option #4 is most useful (given the danger of the pandemic).

Seems to be the most popular so far too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems to be the most popular so far too.

The mention of possible disagreement between
reputable sources is inspired. When qualified people
in the field differ, this enhances the appearance of
openness. And their arguments illuminate the evolving
information & understanding of this dynamic pandemic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You said it was best to base your opinions on facts (of course I agree).
I am saying, that is the entire point of having an open discussion... to allow people to determine what are facts and what are not facts. What do we consider reputable sources of information or not. If you decide the "facts" only come from a particular US government institution and anything else should be dismissed...then I have to disagree for the sake of individual freedom. I'd like to be allowed to disagree. Wouldn't you? I'm looking at the principle rather than the virus specifically.

The policy revisions are to allow for a greater range of sources that members can refer to. Currently, the policy only considers the CDC and the WHO as references. With the policy revision, members should also be able to use sources such as the NHS, Mayo Clinic, and others deemed reputable by the staff besides the CDC and the WHO.

You might ask "Why by the staff?" and that's understandable, but someone has to decide which sources are reputable or else we would simply have to allow any and all sources and end up with tabloid pieces and YouTube videos containing fearmongering and misinformation such as how vaccines will kill all vaccinated people after two years or how COVID doesn't even exist. Between that and having the staff decide which sources are reputable, we're going for the latter.

 

[Quagmire]

I mean no disrespect to members, but one thing that the age of the Web has demonstrated is that surprisingly few people actually check the sources of what they go on to believe whole-heartedly. It's very unfortunate, but it is true.

That is, in many cases, why there are such things as mods and staff -- to at least to screen out of some of the absolute nonsense. Will they ever get absolutely all of it? No, of course not. But it never hurts to try.

Sorry, meant to give you the winner rating, but gave you the creative rating by accident.

When it comes to posting on my phone, sometimes my right hand doesn't even know what my right hand is doing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's true. However, if I felt like I would be censored for having an opposing view to whoever the moderators are, I'd leave this forum as fast as I found it.

And that's why the staff is comprised of volunteer members from different backgrounds and worldviews. The only common factor among all staff members is that we agree on enforcing the forum rules and mission statement regardless of our own personal views. As far as personal views go, some of us are diametrically opposed to each other.

Heck, I'm pretty sure I'd agree with you on some topics more than I would with a few fellow staff members, and you can clearly see this in public threads where staff debate each other on various topics. If the staff areas became an echo chamber, we wouldn't need a consensus system in the first place--and I doubt I'd want to continue being staff here. But they're far from being so, thankfully.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is a fact statement. Did you not see the post I made about someone dying because they could not get in for treatment at 43 hospitals because they were all filled with unvaccinated Covid patients?

No. People die because they get COVID not because they're not vaccinated. The media and government association COVID death/sickness + unvaccinated=get vaccinated isn't a medical fact. It just means unvaccinated people are more at risk. That's it.

And there have been close calls as well such as the boy who could have died because his appendix ruptured as he was waiting due to a hospital full of unvaccinated Covid patients.

But being vaccinated doesn't exclude one from getting sick and dying from COVID, so unless its playing god, it's an opinion.

This illustrates an ethical question: when a person asserts a personal right and the cause of that is the death of another, what do religious and ethical systems have to say. Presumably a thread about that question can be created in a non-Covid thread with Covid as an example.

I've always found the "cause of death of another" argument rather odd, to say the least. It's like if we were in a war and five people decide not to carry a gun, they are told they put others in danger because they decided (according to them) not to protect others from harm.

You'd literally have to prove that the unvaccinated person has COVID for any person thinking without feelings involved to determine whether the threat was warranted.

But, no. Its an opinion based on feelings. You can use facts to support your opinions though.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

YouTube videos containing fearmongering and misinformation such as how vaccines will kill all vaccinated people after two years or how COVID doesn't even exist. B

Debate, this include YouTube links like convincing antimaskers?

And other much more distinct unvax threats (lbw)?

I see more about antivax things than I do if any about the vaccine killing people. If that exists at all, I'm sure it's not on any US program and given our president motives, on anything online at all.

I'd be pressed to find any conspiracy theories analyzed without one-sidedness noneless a civil debate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No. People die because they get COVID not because they're not vaccinated. The media and government association COVID death/sickness + unvaccinated=get vaccinated isn't a medical fact. It just means unvaccinated people are more at risk. That's it.

No, that is not it -- you are omitting very important information.

Yes, it is true that COVID kills only when you actually are infected with it (vaccinated or not).

BUT, you left out this (from the CDC) -- that among those who are infected, those who are unvaccinated are 11 times more likely to die than those who are not. That is a big number.

Another big number, by the way, is that as of today, 1 in every 500 Americans has died as a result of COVID (665,000 people).

 

[Nimos]

Despite this forum not being an official source for corona information. I personally hold the position that all information ought to be allow. By doing so will help people here addressing potential misinformation, which might be helpful for some people.

The information is freely available on the internet anyway, so anyone that want to find such information will find them regardless. At least by raising the information here will allow member to explain why such information is false, which most likely ain't possible from where these information is obtained in the first place.

Besides that, I support complete freedom of speech and the right for everyone to express their opinions, as long as they are presented maturely and serious. Trying or hiding information will never lead to any constructive outcome in my opinion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Debate, this include YouTube links like convincing antimaskers?

And other much more distinct unvax threats (lbw)?

I'm not sure what you mean, but the point is that any videos or articles from obscure sources (i.e., not peer-reviewed or from relevant experts) making such claims qualify as dangerous misinformation because we know that COVID can kill people, and we know it is significantly contagious. The policy, whether the current one or the revised version, prohibits anything denying these facts to entirely avoid the risks associated with such denial.

I see more about antivax things than I do if any about the vaccine killing people. If that exists at all, I'm sure it's not on any US program and given our president motives, on anything online at all.

I'd be pressed to find any conspiracy theories analyzed without one-sidedness noneless a civil debate.

A lot of scientific issues may seem "one-sided" because certain views have no peer-reviewed evidence or any solid expert backing.

Regardless, my example was meant to highlight that, in one way or another, someone has to decide which sources are reputable given the undesirability of the alternative (i.e., allowing any and all sources and the claims they make).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure what you mean, but the point is that any videos or articles from obscure sources (i.e., not peer-reviewed or from relevant experts) making such claims qualify as dangerous misinformation because we know that COVID can kill people, and we know it is significantly contagious. The policy, whether the current one or the revised version, prohibits anything denying these facts to entirely avoid the risks associated with such denial.

Is it akin to having information that may talk about suicide from both angles but censored because some may commit suicide over misrepresented information?

Unless it's medical advice, illegal, and things of that nature, I'm not sure how conflicting information is dangerous to someone reading it from social media.

Is there a criteria to base what's dangerous or what's a difference of opinion?