SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the even-my-parent's-VCR-clock-is-right-once-a-day dept.
Channels like VAXXED TV, LarryCook333, iHealthTube, and other anti-vaccination channels on YouTube have been seeing their videos demonetized starting Friday.
“We have strict policies that govern what videos we allow ads to appear on, and videos that promote anti-vaccination content are a violation of those policies”
the policy referenced by YouTube states:
Harmful or dangerous acts
Video content that promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury is not suitable for advertising. Some examples include videos depicting painful or invasive surgical or cosmetic procedures, or pranks involving sexual harassment or humiliation.
According to YouTube, this includes anti-vaxxer content.
Youtube has also introduced an information panel pertaining to vaccines. Looking through some anti-vax channels, the following text and link is displayed below anti-vax videos:
Vaccine controversies
Vaccine hesitancy, a reluctance or refusal to vaccinate or have one's children vaccinated, has been identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.[1][2] Hesitancy results from public debates around the medical, ethical and legal issues related to vaccines.
Wikipedia
Most may agree with the target of these actions (particularly with measles making a tragic comeback in the U.S. due to loss of herd immunity resulting from reduced vaccination rates), but the process still has those 'unaccountable', 'untransparent', 'arbitrary', 'unappealable' characteristics that have become the norm with large social media providers.
Pinterest is also taking measures to reduce the spread of anti-vax propaganda on its platform
So how exactly is Pinterest doing this? By blacklisting search terms like “vaccines” from the platform, along with sites that spread this sort of health misinformation.
Additional coverage of anti-vax demonitization Here and here
A sampling of previous coverage of the 'vaccine controversy' on SoylentNews here and here
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Monday February 25 2019, @02:40AM (12 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday February 25 2019, @02:59AM (9 children)
I don't get the reason you are complaining.
Fair is fair: you are still within your rights to refuse vaccination.
Also fair is fair: you can not force me or anyone else to have dealings with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Monday February 25 2019, @03:09AM (8 children)
I wasn't complaining.
I was poking fun at the utterly ridiculous quote:
"Vaccine hesitancy, a reluctance or refusal to vaccinate or have one's children vaccinated, has been identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.[1][2] Hesitancy results from public debates around the medical, ethical and legal issues related to vaccines."
"Hesitancy" doesn't result from debates. It results from avoidance of debates, and/or a failure to convince at said debates, and/or the natural human desire to remain inviolate.
Demonizing people that are "hesitant" to allow some stranger to penetrate them 'for their own good' may actually make a certain amount of sense within a very narrowly circumscribed point of view but it makes every creepazoid sensor in my body scream simultaneously.
How about you quit pretending that anyone that isn't eager to be penetrated must be retarded, and accept that debate may be required and some people may rationally refuse anyway?
Would that just make too much sense or what?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 25 2019, @03:48AM
How about you show me where I pretented anti-vaxxers are retarded or even just implied it?
Even if I would have done it (which I didn't), it is within my rights to do so. Your choice if you want to deal with my position or not. Fair enough? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday February 25 2019, @04:45AM (4 children)
Let me ask a different question - why are you so keen on using the word "penetrate" as if it is some implicit violation? Are patients who receive anaesthetic, tetanus shots or insulin being violated?
Would you say that it's sensible for a diabetic to decide that they'd rather roll the dice than use insulin, because they don't like being "penetrated"? After all, they _could_ survive without those shots as long as they're careful, but it's much harder. I'd call them idiots.
For the record, I don't call anti-vaxxers retarded - I call them selfish. They put their own perceived needs above those of society, and rely on others doing the right thing to protect them via herd immunity. They also want to have their cake and eat it - refuse to help the community prevent outbreaks, but still want to receive the full benefits of being part of that society. I personally have no problem with schools etc banning unvaccinated kids as a health measure to protect the rest of the student body.
(Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday February 25 2019, @11:44PM
Technically, any shot is an invasion of the body - it is placing a tube into the body which does not naturally belong. Also technically, shots if done incorrectly do indeed cause damage and even if done correctly run an infinitesimally small chance of still developing an infection. (And for incorrect uses... look up conditions like lipoatrophy for diabetics who fail to rotate administration sites, or track marks for heroin users).
If the shot had no therapeutic purpose (i.e. did not expect a greater gain either individually or societally than the level of invasion) it is a battery.
And yes, a diabetic who has competency may refuse their insulin. Patient autonomy, in a patient capable of consent (which includes revoking or refusing consent), is the first virtue which is above all others. A diabetic may intentionally choose death by refusal to accept insulin if he or she chooses. (By the way, assuming you're talking a Type 1 diabetic whose body produces no insulin whatsoever, and without supplemental insulin the body will waste and die. Type 2 and Diabetes Insipidus patients do not necessarily require insulin). Calling such a person an idiot makes you God, which you ain't.
I agree with you that anti-vaxxers are indeed selfish, only very rarely understand the true risks of vaccination versus non-vaccination (in terms of odds), and place their desires above society's. They also almost always do not understand the concept of herd immunity and that their refusal does in fact affect more than themselves as potential carriers of a live disease. (Not to mention unnecessarily endangering the health care workers who will still be there for them in their disease and when their 'children's disease' very rarely passes into a fatal irreversible condition. Usually those horrid complications occur at a far greater rate than the extremely rare damaging vaccine reaction. Although OPV should be discarded in favor of shots.) They are selfish. But even then.... they have the autonomy to say no even if it hurts the rest of us, literally. And that doesn't mean they're "right" even if they have "rights".
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:29AM (2 children)
It is the accurate and clinical word to refer to what is happening. The skin which defines the boundary between the individual and the outside world is penetrated. It's perplexing to me you seem to think I am playing some sort of word game when I am simply using the word that matches the action precisely.
"Are patients who receive anaesthetic, tetanus shots or insulin being violated?"
Yes, they are.
There are two sense in which this can be taken - the minor sense is the sense in which even with consent this is indeed a "violation" of the physical integrity of the individual. Again, that's not a word game, it's simply an accurate statement. The boundary is violated.
Done for a legitimate medical reason, with proper sanitation and sterile procedures, and with informed consent, this is a violation only in the technical sense, meaning that skin is penetrated. But if it's done without consent, it's also a violation in a much deeper and more significant sense as well.
"Would you say that it's sensible for a diabetic to decide that they'd rather roll the dice than use insulin, because they don't like being "penetrated"?"
Sensible? I doubt it. But it's not my call to make. That call is up to the individual in question.
"For the record, I don't call anti-vaxxers retarded - I call them selfish."
Funny, I'd call you the same thing. Just based on this post.
Other people have minds too. Just because you don't understand why someone says 'no' doesn't mean you have a right to ignore their 'no.'
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday February 28 2019, @06:06AM (1 child)
I can accept that some people will say no. I do not accept that they should expect no other consequences as a result of their decision to say no.
If I decide to wear a singlet and shorts, I accept that I will not be permitted to dine at a fancy restaurant. If I decide to not bathe for a week, I accept that I will be unlikely to hook up with someone at a bar. If an anti-vaxxer decides not to vaccinate their kids, they should accept that their child will be unable to attend a public elementary school. Yet they don't - they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Ship 'em off to Madagascar - they're having loads of fun with Measles at the moment.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday February 28 2019, @11:14AM
The second part isn't a real thing. No one other than you ever said that.
Every action, even declining to act, always has consequences.
I don't think that's what you mean though. No, I rather expect what you actually mean is you want consequences imposed on them. You want them sanctioned, for refusing to do what you think they should do.
I do think you're an authoritarian.
"If an anti-vaxxer decides not to vaccinate their kids, they should accept that their child will be unable to attend a public elementary school."
And you would refund their school taxes so they can afford an alternative? Or is this simply meant as a way of punishing the wrongthinkers, and their little children as well?
"Ship 'em off to Madagascar - they're having loads of fun with Measles at the moment."
Never mind, you've said more than enough already.
Give me a thousand frightened and poorly informed folks that respect the rights of strangers over a single self-righteous authoritarian jackass any day. I hope you get shipped to Madagascar. Not that they deserve to have to deal with you either, but I suspect they'd at least be quick and efficient about it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by FatPhil on Monday February 25 2019, @11:17PM (1 child)
Your choice of term is sophistry - it's an injection, why do you want to dress it up with a misleading loaded word? (That's a rhetorical question, there's no need to answer; it's because you know the meat of your argument is weak, we can all see that.) Are expectant mothers being given nitrous oxide on the delivery table being "gassed"? Do you view wearing seatbelts during take-off and landing as bondage at the hands of the dominatrix air steward?
Of course, there can be rational reasons to not vaccinate, but they are few and far between, and fortunately that makes them small enough not to affect the herd immunity. Being an anti-science loon is not such a reason, and the results of that have been adequately demonstrated to those who pay attention to such issues. Now if anti-vaxers were prepared to insure against the breaking of herd immunity, and not just their own sickness, then perhaps they could convince the rest of the libertarians to support them, but even then, the masses should view them for what they are - a dangerous risk.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:16AM
Do I detect someone who has no reasoned response?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @03:00AM
"I'm sorry children, Youtube pulled our ad-funding so now we have to deliver you to some doctors to be, uh, as some creep said, 'penetrated'."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @06:38AM
Politics by corporate policy is a VERY slippery and dangerous slope.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by captain normal on Monday February 25 2019, @02:45AM (21 children)
Let me get this straight...do they think removing ads is going to stop people from watching the videos? Seems to me if they want discourage people from watching harmful content they should just pile on the ads. Or maybe, how about just blocking the bad videos.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 25 2019, @02:50AM (1 child)
Also sounds to me like they're judging the topic - do they leave the option for advertising available to videos which promote vaccination?
If, however unlikely, it turns out that the unpopular side of one of these controversial topics turns out to be the true one, will Google then be paying reparations and damages to all the people harmed by their assistance in the spread of misinformation?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @03:42AM
Certainly not. They will redirect you to the World Health Organization. (It's not morally right, as Google is acting as an agent of WHO. But legally it will do, considering their lawyers against you.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Monday February 25 2019, @02:50AM (10 children)
In reality, the effects are likely to be mixed, of course.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday February 25 2019, @03:06AM (8 children)
The vast majority of people who upload videos are likely not getting paid anything (or an amount so small as to be insignificant). Having ads removed is probably a plus for those people. More importantly, it is a resource drain for youtube because its running machinery and spitting out data, but getting no revenue.
Obviously, what the world really needs is a universal list of demonetized ad-free youtube vids. THAT would make youtube blink I think it being a representation of nothing but lost costs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by patricepetticoat on Monday February 25 2019, @03:13AM (1 child)
Oh no no. You give some more specifics or your statement is meaningless. How many people are are not getting paid. What percentage?
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday February 25 2019, @11:36PM
Google seems to be ruining my searches, and hiding anti-vax shit from me, but I deliberately searched for an anti-vax string of words, and the first thing that wasn't anti-anti-vax - the top thing - the thing that's most likely to get views - was this:
Vaccines Destroy Children: Is Your Child Next?
LarryCook333
2 years ago 26,140 views
Let's call that $26 dollars.
He should learn to code.
You're falling for the trap that many musicians fall for - you see some at the top earning a lot, and you think there's money in it generally. That's a naive fallacy. OK, my sample was a sample of 1, so is not statistically sound, but if you want to address that aspect of my argument, you should know that the next 2 were:
Their Vaccine Free Children Are Strong, Healthy and Smart!
LarryCook333
6 months ago 2,724 views
My Kids: Their Severe Vaccine Injuries Do Not Qualify For A Medical Exemption
LarryCook333
3 years ago 4,975 views
$3 and $5 more - woo woo - let's buy a yacht!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday February 25 2019, @04:38AM (5 children)
... the demonetized ad free YouTube vids?
A world full of curated lists of links to most things would result in the insolvency of the search engines.
We wouldn’t want that to happen would we now?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @10:04AM (1 child)
Something close to it used to be called WebRing [wikipedia.org] in the '90.
Maybe would be a good thing to see them come back?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday February 25 2019, @05:45PM
There was a time that I actually had quite a lot of money.
I mean I really did. And you know what?
I was miserable then. I really _am_ far far far happier singing for my burritos.
There is no amount of money whatsoever that could possibly entice me to accept payment for listing a company at Soggy Jobs. No sponsored listings, no graphic logo listings, no bold-face listings, none of that.
WebRing sold out.
I was quite stoked that I got listed at the Yahoo Directory very early on - by quite _literally_ emailing my link to Jerry Yang! I Am Absolutely Serious.
Imagine my dismay when I wanted to do other stuff than BeOS only to find that the newly-funded Yahoo! Corporation required four hundred Simoleons not so much to give me a second listing, or to create a new listing, but merely to alter just a few words of the text of my existing listing.
By contrast, IMDB - which really was Just Some Guy Like Me [archive.org] - has always listed everything absolutely free of charge - _all_ the movies, _all_ the actors, _all_ the crew - but makes quite a lot of their money with an entirely separate site which is there specifically for Entertainment Industry Professionals to list themselves that their fellow Pros might find them and so hire them for new productions.
I'm going to write a Manifesto which addresses these two. More or less what it will say is that we can return the power of the World Wide Web to the common people to a large extent through no other means than for hobbyists to compile their very own curated list sites, but that those hobbyists must either _remain_ hobbyists, they must monetize some _other_ way than by accepting payments for Sponsored Links, or that like IMDb, they must maintain two sites apiece, on a free site, the other a paysite but one in which _all_ links, while paid for, cost exactly the _same_ as each other.
I am by no means the first to build a curated link list site, but to the best of my knowledge Soggy Jobs is the most extensive such curated link list to date.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @11:44AM (2 children)
Dude, people type google to google to get to google. People search for facebook so they don't type facebook.com. They search for their bank and click on first thing on google.... they can't even use bookmarks and browser history (ie. when you start typing in address bar it also searched your history) to find their sites... and now you think they will go to magiclists.antigoogledsite.com/~bestthings/index.hml to find some curated lists?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday February 25 2019, @05:54PM
Lots of people use bookmarks; others set their homepages.
Consider that after applying for ten or twenty jobs, most of my users will bookmark me.
My domain name was _very_ carefully researched.
Any link list that enjoys widespread popularity is likely to end up on its own domain.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Monday February 25 2019, @11:40PM
I've seen someone search for facebook.com in order to find facebook (OK, she's grandma-aged, so we cringe internally when we see it, but know there's nothing that can be changed - her method does, after all, work).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday February 25 2019, @03:23AM
Actually, they are removing the financial incentive/ability of the creators of the videos to continue using youtube, which isn't a thing as long as nobody disconnects them from the internet.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Monday February 25 2019, @03:09AM
It removes the financial motivation to *create* and propagate more of these videos.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by driverless on Monday February 25 2019, @06:48AM
Exactly. These guys are on a holy crusade to oppose vaccination, removing their ads will be about as effective as removing ads from jihadist videos.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 25 2019, @12:57PM (4 children)
All depends on if you want to be a neutral platform that everyone's happy to use or an activist platform that second-classes or outright bans everyone it doesn't approve of.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @04:44PM (1 child)
You calling this a black and white issue? That's racist!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 25 2019, @04:59PM
Did you just exclude hispanics, asians, indians, middle-easterners, the other indians, and furries? You horrible racist, you!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 26 2019, @04:27PM (1 child)
There ain't no such thing as a "neutral platform". There never has been, and probably never will be.
- In person, in a public square: Sure, anybody can stand up and speechify, but to do that they need to be able to take the time to go do that, and not be so crazy that the cops treat them like a mental health case, and they have to be able to speak loudly and clearly so somebody with voice problems can't be represented there, etc. There's also the small problem of drawing a crowd - during the Roman Republic the standard method was for a senator to pay people to show up and listen when they were speaking in the Forum.
- Print materials: While printing wasn't and isn't super-expensive it also wasn't free, so someone with a lot of money had a much easier time printing and distributing whatever he wanted than somebody with no money at all. And of course a lot of the population was illiterate throughout much of human history (and in many places still is), so the written word was completely unavailable to those people. And print that people in power don't like in a lot of countries has a tendency to be burned.
- Telephone / telegraph: Not free to use, and certainly not free to use en masse until recently. Plus the telegraph and telephone companies, as well as governments, can and have shut people down for communicating using these tools if they didn't like them, and/or spied on those communications for more forceful methods later on.
- Broadcast media: Again, radio / TV equipment isn't free, and not exactly super-cheap at least in my days as a ham. And broadcast rights are under control by the government, or in the hands of whoever can pay for the most electricity to overpower other stations broadcasting on the same frequency. So that means that you aren't saying anything on those mediums for any extended period of time without approval from somebody else.
- Open web: You might think that's a content-neutral platform. You're wrong: Search engines can make whatever you have to say hard to find for completely arbitrary reasons. Governments can and do block sites they don't like. Servers aren't free, so also the biggest megaphone goes to the person with the biggest purse.
- Social media platforms: Are you friggin' kidding me? These are for-profit corporations that have complete control over what is said and not said on their platforms, and can censor anything you say for any reason.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 26 2019, @05:26PM
None of which conflicts with what I said. We're talking the desires of the folks running $site, not the history of oppression.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:59PM
No. But it will remove one of the incentives that drive the scam artists who perpetuate this absurdity. If you cannot make money fleecing the stupid, you stop trying to fleece them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Revek on Monday February 25 2019, @02:50AM (4 children)
They demonetize all kinds of videos. They allow all kinds of abuse of their copyright system and have it custom tailored it so the little guy always loses. These morons make flat earthers look like astronauts but this move isn't going to make them go away.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @03:05AM
It isn't about making them go away. Youtube just doesn't want to deal with advertisers that get pissed off for being associated with flat-earth crap.
That is almost the most troubling aspect of corporate censorship, the sheer bureaucratic nature of it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by hemocyanin on Monday February 25 2019, @03:10AM (1 child)
I don't always watch youtube, but when I do, I only watch demonetized vids.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday February 25 2019, @03:26AM
Yes, demonized videos are the best.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday February 25 2019, @05:21AM
I don't think you've thought through your argument very well. It is in YouTube's best interest to monetize everything, because literally that means more money for YouTube. Every time they show an ad, they are not only paying the video creator, but also taking a slice themselves.
The reason YouTube demonetizes stuff is because advertisers and copyright abusers (large media corporations) force YouTube to do so, and the reason advertisers and copyright abusers do so is because the average person gives tacit approval through the legal system, consumerism, readership of outrage-fueled news media, and public outrage (how dare YouTube monetize videos with creepy comments!).
If there were a big movement criticizing YouTube and advertisers for demonetizing ("censoring") "pedophile" videos and boycotting YouTube and said companies until they restore it, YouTube would be more than happy to take in more revenue. Sadly, I don't see such a movement forthcoming.
Similarly for copyright, it is in YouTube's best interest that copyright doesn't exist, because that mean YouTube can get advertising revenue for content that users ripped and uploaded from their rightful owners (e.g. TV series). The reason YouTube is forced to enforce copyright is because copyright abusers force them to do so, and the reason copyright abusers can do so is because of the tacit approval of the average person. YouTube didn't invent DMCA. The MAFIAA did.
You reap what you sow, as a society.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by patrick on Monday February 25 2019, @03:29AM (8 children)
A person who is trying to spread their message for the benefit of others does not need advertising revenue. Money is often made by playing into people's fears. This stops anti-vaxxer video posts that take advantage of that fact, without censoring people with genuine beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @03:56AM (7 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 25 2019, @11:07AM
If you think genuine beliefs are dangerous, try fake beliefs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @11:53AM (5 children)
Better than that, there's evidence that a lot of the sacrificial 'victims' were willing.... such is the power of religious indoctrination/brainwashing from an early age.
...allegedly suffered ill effects, allegedly...
And I say that as someone who had a childhood friend who was a victim of Thalidomide, and who has a deep mistrust of the medical 'industry' and, by extension, those of the medical profession who're apparently far more interested in the health of 'Big Pharma' that that of their patients (personal experience, long story short, between ages 10-15 I was used by my family doctor (wearing his 'invisible' consultant hat) as an unwitting guinea pig for trials of experimental asthma medications, it took a change of family doctor and his digging through a maze of paperwork for this to come to light, so let's just say my ground state is that I'm not that trusting of the profession as a whole, irrespective of how many of them are genuine menschen..)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday February 25 2019, @05:51PM (4 children)
The Federal Law that established the Vaccine Court also indemnified the drug companies from liability for harm caused by their vaccines.
From time to time, a small child will be quite-seriously crippled due to a reaction from a vaccine. While they cannot sue the company that caused the problem, they _can_ sue the Federal Government in Vaccine Court. That court really _does_ pay out lots of damage awards.
And no, the disablement I speak of isn't autism. In many cases it's far worse than that.
That you ever-so-incorrectly claim that vaccines cause _no_ harm at all leads me to point out that the pro-vaccine folks are in every respect as delusional as the anti-vaxxers.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by bussdriver on Monday February 25 2019, @06:43PM
mod parent up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @06:48PM (2 children)
Obviously, vaccines do cause issues from time to time, but I'd take a world with those issues over one without vaccines any day of the week.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @09:41PM
if you weren't so busy sucking big pharma and big government ass you could join with people who have watched their kids get fucking lobotomized by these fucking scum and demand accountability, safe, clean fucking vaccines, etc. but nooo, you're just a dumb fucking slave sucking up to your masters and trying to make sure everyone else has to do it too. keep pushing your authoritarian dystopia and see what happens.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday February 26 2019, @02:44AM
Because they contributed their legs to their modest increment of herd immunity.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @03:59AM (6 children)
Every parent who refuses to vaccinate based on anything other than a child's documented anaphylaxis to the ingredients of the vaccines should be charged with criminal child neglect just the same as if they refused to give the child some other life saving medicine that was easily within their grasp such as insulin. I would take it further and any parent who's child sickens another should do hard prison time for each child they put in danger.
This is not a joke. Vaccines work, there isn't a way to dispute it. Every reliable bit of evidence absolutely screams that you are committing murder of innocent children when you fail to vaccinate your child and it might not even be your own child you're murdering. As for anti-vaxing adults, please keep on refusing the vaccines for yourself. It increases supply for the rest of us and you're less of a drag on resources if you're in the ground pushing up daisies. Just don't bother to reproduce. Darwin will sort this out eventually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @06:35AM
So there isn’t a fund set aside for those who have adverse effects?
If I were lawsuit proof and you still had to buy my product by law, you can bet I’d axe QA immediately as an unnecessary expense.
It’s not as simple as you make it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @08:50AM (4 children)
I have also found a few papers which prove that filter cigarettes allow to fight lots of lung diseases as they disinfect the respiratory tract. These are a legit articles in a well-cited scientific journals. Maybe smoking near children or making our children smoke should also be considered healthy and non-smoking as a criminal act?
In 1970s and 80s there were really violent moves towards tobacco manufacturers to make them release their methodology, and it was found that cigarettes are bad, make people die, make children get autism (or sth like this) and cows give spoiled milk ;). The violence of these moves can be validated by seeing that in some countries there were no cigarettes available at all in shops for a few months!
Meanwhile, I still try to debunk the vaccine heavy metals hypothesis and no manufacturer ever released production details which allow to validate that in reactors used there is no chance that e.g. this lead-based gasket forgotten years ago is not in contact with product.
There are lots of meaningless, non law-binding BS like "good practices" or apparent lies like "Our goal is high quality"... The goal is in your business plans morons! They literally say "We want you not to think about it". This is a level of typical street drugs.
So now YT demonetizes anti-vaccine videos. Then, in USA, it will come to Democrats or Republicans, depending on who bribes better. In EU the thing may be about Article 13. Or maybe about products reviews if it is not so good as seller wants.
Then maybe people will realize that by giving up their publishing possibilities to "platforms" instead of their Internet access services, they lost nearly all abilities to publish on the Internet if they are not a big business. And then it will be too late.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @04:53PM (3 children)
You are an intelligent person. You should know that there's a world of difference between a handful of papers from the 1970s showing an a questionable result, and the long term, well known, nearly 200 year track record on something like vaccines.
We started mandating vaccination, childhood illnesses all but disappeared. In countries where they do not have access to vaccines, the children suffer at rates to be expected from not being vaccinated, so we aren't talking a mutation that somehow rendered the disease inert, nor a hereditary gene in humans somehow making people less susceptible. Use Occam's razor here. There is no doubt that vaccination works and it prevents some really horrible shit from happening to innocent kids who cannot protect themselves.
Yet some uneducated, money grubbing morons on the internet convince a substantial subset of the population to stop vaccinating so they can sell you books and miracle cures and suddenly these diseases become resurgent.
This isn't a just a cough or a cold guys. These are real diseases that will make your kids sick. At best you are debilitating the child for life, at worst you are murdering your child by withholding from them a life saving medicine.
If you're worried about quality control then pass laws to tighten quality controls and no, the manufacturers should not be protected from lawsuits, but the standard of proof needs to be much higher as in "I vaccinated my child against X, they got X anyways, here's the coroner's report".
The same should be true of anyone spreading anti-vaxxer nonsense. They should be held criminally and civilly liable for every kid who got sick because of their nonsense. It should be exactly the same as withholding any life saving medicine from your child, such as insulin or albuterol and the people spreading this nonsense need to be charged with practicing medicine without a license in addition to child abuse and neglect or each sick child of some poor parent who was not intelligent enough to realize they were being taken advantage of by fraudsters. Each anti-vax group should be required to pay the medical bills for each child who got sick because their parents were too dumb not to listen to their blithering nonsense. Make this painful, make this hurt, make it criminal in the worst possible way, just like we do for any other form of child abuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @06:12PM (1 child)
Uneducated? no, well, not all of them, some of them know *exactly* what they're doing
dangerously unscrupulous? yes, fuck yes...
And yet, sitting beside me as I type this, is someone who is deaf in one ear as a result of childhood measles over 50 years ago, despite having been vaccinated.
That's a problem here as well, having been promised magical 'silver bullets', it's very hard for parents to accept as an excuse 'sorry, that's the way the dice roll...shit happens' (no matter how nicely it's couched in medical terminology) in that Nth percentage of cases where these bullets fail to kill the werewolf.
To paraphrase the way someone put it in one of the previous discussions here, the goal of mass vaccination programs isn't really about protecting the health of any specific individual as such, but that of the herd in general, people need to be told up front that in these cases, shit will indeed happen to an unlucky percentage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @08:04PM
Let me put it this way. Your friend is deaf in one ear because he got measles despite being vaccinated, but that is not the whole story.
Vaccination does not work to "completely stop you from ever getting the disease". No one in their right mind should even think of it that way.
A vaccine works by giving your body pre-warning that something nasty is coming, and this gives your body a head start on figuring out how to deal with it thereby lessening the effects dramatically.
You blaming vaccines for your friend being deaf is the same as blaming seatbelts because, despite wearing the seatbelt properly you were injured in a high speed collision. The seatbelt prevented something far worse from happening. The vaccine did as well. Don't believe me? 900 unvaccinated kids just died in Madagascar https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/02/25/measles-outbreak-900-dead-madagascar-could-happen-u-s/2977595002/ [usatoday.com] and 130 died in the Phillipines https://boingboing.net/2019/02/19/measles-kills-130-in-the-phili.html [boingboing.net] This shit is deadly and killing innocents in countries where access to vaccines is limited.
Oddly it is at least a misdemeanor in most states not to buckle up your child, and it is a felony in 5 states.
https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/safetybeltuse/mapbeltenforcement [iihs.org]
Isn't it odd that every argument against vaccination can be made against seatbelts and child car seats, yet you do not see people in their right mind running around with their kids unbuckled and encouraging others to do the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @09:45PM
i would beat you to death in 5 minutes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday February 25 2019, @04:00AM (2 children)
Will they also remove ads from pro-vaccination videos? Vaccines HAVE harmed people.
And guns hurt people (or people WITH guns hurt people...what about THOSE videos?
Chocolate cake can make you fat! Remove ads from THOSE as well!
Oprah makes me barf! DENIED!?
God's the stupidity is turtles the whole way down!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @04:47PM
It is about PR not censorship of wrong-think. Advertisers are YT's actual customers.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 25 2019, @11:56PM
That's a good thing, right?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday February 25 2019, @06:53AM (3 children)
stealing from anti-vaxxers is still theft [soylentnews.org]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 25 2019, @07:38PM (2 children)
Choosing to not do business with someone is not theft.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday February 25 2019, @09:22PM (1 child)
Arbitrarily taking money away, though...
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 25 2019, @10:05PM
Arbitrarily choosing to not give them money.
Kind of like how I arbitrarily choose not to give RIAA artists any money and they don't get to complain about theft either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @09:28PM
"Most may agree with the target of these actions (particularly with measles making a tragic comeback in the U.S. due to loss of herd immunity resulting from reduced vaccination rates)"
you stupid fucking bitch. STFU!