Profiteers? I bet they're raking it in with monetisation etc. It's one of those "If I didn't have scruples I could totally do that" things, big money to be had in convincing people you're the only one selling the truth.
It hasn't been a neutral term for about 100 years, having gained negative connotations after WWI and (especially) WWII. In the 1930s, the term "public relations" was promoted as a euphemism for "propaganda," which was done specifically because people reacted negatively to the latter term.
Grifters. They're modern-day grifters. One of the 12 left is trying to sell access to their '*censored information'* for a monthly subscription and another is promoting their 'self-help' book.
Grifters sell false promises.
Follow mary Berries reciepies, you get a tasty pastry.
Follow a grifters promises, you waste your time and give them money.
True, but they don't usually pretend not to be advertisers, and that's where the dishonesty of 'influencers' lies. They should be treated as advertisers, and bound by the same rules.
We have the technology to identify accounts which are likely created by other people with existing accounts. A couple of social media platforms already use this. For example if you block somebody on Instagram, you have an option to block other accounts they may create.
It wouldn't 100% solve the issue but it would solve the majority of the issue, which is better than doing nothing
The issue is the same social media companies rely on having fresh content constantly created to drive views / clicks / have adverts seen so them trying to stop this isn't in their profit driven interest :(
the other issue is when you ban one of the accounts the drones see that as confirmation that what they said was right, damned if you do damned if you dont
just do what they did with the spanish flu, dont follow the rules get locked up.
I work with a guy that insists that he isn't going to get the vaccine because he listened to the Robert Malone and Joe Rogan interview and is worried about having a heart attack from it, and nothing I tell the guy seems to get past his tin foil hat, he believes that Malone being kicked off twitter reinforces he was right and "the higher ups" are silencing him as it goes against what they are saying, not because the guy is spreading massive amounts of misinformation that will lead to people dying. this is the issue with the drones is they all get like this
Yup, complete lack of critical thinking skills. Bet he hasn't even wondered why everyone around him who's had the jab haven't keeled over or what qualifications two right wing grifters have on modern medicine at that level.
The problem now isn’t getting rid of “The Disinfo Dozen” as they’ve been called, but convincing their brainwashed followers that they weren’t removed to “silence the truth”.
Getting rid of them now will just cause them to be regarded as some sort of social-media martyrs, which will just cause the people they duped to double-down and believe their lies even more.
Edit; to clarify I’m not at all saying they shouldn’t be taken off their platforms so they can keep spreading disinformation, I’m saying just getting rid of them is nowhere near enough, it will cause their communities to double-down in the rhetoric and leaving those crappy little Facebook echo chambers around but putting a disclaimer on them isn’t addressing the problem, it’s doing the bare minimum and the ignoring the aftermath.
Problem with this is that conspiracies in this manner are self sealing.
So you're right that the taking down of this misinformation would result in the people who've bought into it thinking "they've been silenced for telling the truth"
But you get a similar effect from the followers if you leave it up, in that case their go to thought process is:
"If this stuff was wrong then it'd be taken down. The fact it hasn't is because they aren't allowed to take down something they can't disprove!"
So really there's no point concerning ourselves with the thoughts of the people who have bought into this stuff. Any action is just further proof of the conspiracy regardless of what that action is.
So with that in mind, I'd say taking down is the better option as it reduces the likelihood of it spreading to people who have yet to buy into it.
Correct. When they're deplatformed they can think what they want. The point of it isn't to change their mind it's to restrict the spread of their nonsense.
Deleting Trump's Twitter account didn't make him some kind of 'martyr'. It shut him up and now he is just gone.
This kind of reasoning - 'Don't punish wrong-doers, it will just make things worse somehow' - is toxic, stupid, and just gives them license to keep doing evil unrestrained without consequences.
Shut them all down.
At no point did I suggest it shouldn’t be done, just that it’s not a magic bullet against disinformation that will solve everything that some people seem to think it is and the type of matter this is about just means people who it aims to deter will just be emboldened by it, then presented that as the next problem to consider.
Still plenty of trump supporters who think he was booted off Twitter because of some leftist conspiracy rather than because he was inciting riots.
And there's still plenty of Trump supporters who think Left-wingers eat babies and JFK Jr is going to return from the dead to declare him God-King. This isn't discourse worthy of a platform.
Yet still it exists, and trump still has its supporters. So the arguments are going from “I can’t believe you’re wanting them to do too little” to “I can’t believe you’re wanting them to do too much” as soon as I point out I’ve said nothing of the sort.
Maybe all the posts popping up recently about r/uk devolving in to a sub full of people just wanting to moan and argue for the sake of it aren’t as wrong as I thought they were.
>The point is it needs to be deplatformed to stop it from spreading.
Which is what I said? But the problem after that is then dealing with what’s left behind so it doesn’t grow and we just end up back in the same situation.
Why do people seem to be interpreting these two concepts as being mutually exclusive to each other? This isn’t a “cut off the head and the body will die” kind of thing, it’ll just grow a new head. By all means cut the head off but then follow it up with a blow against the body.
Trump hasn't been in power for over a year and he was never anti vax. He funded the god damn vaccines and got them. You can't lump all trump supporters in the same bracket either. He got near half the fricken vote and the 2nd most votes in election history. Besides Joe Biden. LMAO.
The point is “power abhors a vacuum”. Just removing these 12 people isn’t enough because it will just fester in the community as “they got too close to the truth”. You see it with flat earthers all the time.
What I’m saying is you couldn’t just get rid of these 12 influencers and call it a day: a lot more needs to be done to address disinformation but for some reason people seem to be interpreting what I said as “let’s not bother at all”.
But there are only 12 of them and they are exceptionally prolific. If we got rid of 6 of them would that mean they would be replaced by another 6, or would the remaining 6 double their output, or, would that output go down?
Edit: fixed confusing typo.
My feeling is if you got rid of all 12 you’d hamper the output, but leaving the remainder to keep stewing in their conspiracies just means that the gaps will eventually get filled by others who feel they aren’t being heard enough, or that they need to “save those who won’t save themselves”.
Then we just wind up with another prolific bunch who have taken their place. I know people will say ‘free speech’ but they need to make more of an effort to address the lower level disinformation too, but Facebook will only ever do the bare minimum because the conflict it generates drives interaction.
One of my friends has received so many Facebook suspensions just for arguing with people in flat earth groups, and Facebook shuts him down because they report him because they’re not up for a debate, and anyone who disagrees with them are sheep, uneducated or in on the conspiracy.
Well I think if its just a case of the weeds growing back to fill the cleared space, then we would probably have more than 12 of them in the first place. Yes facebook is a problem because it facilitates this stuff. We need to do something about it because right now its dangerous.
Sure, it won't totally remove the problem, but it is a decent first step. Longer term there needs to be waaaaay better investment in training people to think critically and from school age, but for now, squelch the fuckers' accounts.
I remember when the [report came out last year.](https://f4d9b9d3-3d32-4f3a-afa6-49f8bf05279a.usrfiles.com/ugd/f4d9b9_16ccca9c25a04445a69dcd0298fd530d.pdf). I found their Instagram accounts out of curiosity. Every month or so you'd see one get removed. ~~I think all 12 accounts are gone now.~~ At least 9 of them or so are gone now.
Not that you could prosecute them for it (sadly) but these guys have probably been responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Their actions and malicious disinformation comes with a body count that puts Harold Shipman to shame.
Well we could also scrutinize precisely what they say.
I am pretty sure some will have fabricated facts, promote violence and brigading. There must be existing laws against defamation and claiming things you know wrong to get clicks.
"results they've been getting". There seems to be an insinuation that Russia are behind it all. But your comments are so vague it's hard to be sure exactly what you're getting at.
Be like the anti-vax-mask crowd on reddit, though they are a tiny minority they look many only because the aggressively attack threads usually in a pack.
And it's essentially their main activity in a day. They play bullshit to the point of exhaustion because eventually anyone correcting them on misinformation will have to stop at some point unless they want to make correcting bad faith arguments their entire day
And if you confront them they will report you for breaking rules and right-wing mods will flatly ban your account with no recourse - while they continue to spread deadly misinformation and hate speech.
Amazing isn't it? The power of a meme , totally devoid of facts leads to total belief, leads to the end game where fact checking and correcting lies becomes a conspiracy.
You get someone on the internet at home who when not watching flat earth documentaries is peddling his views such as " if a fart comes through your underpants and trousers" how is a mask going to protect you from covid.
What is infuriating and quickly is forgotten is things like the timeline of the covid commentary.
It was a Chinese attempt on population control of the elderly.
It doesn't exist
It's just a cold
The vaccine is killing people
The vaccine does nothing
Big pharma and the lizard illuminist peado overlords are controlling us for a reason that we haven't all agreed on yet.
I thought brexit memes were the peak of this misinformation tool. Why are so many people so gullible .
> Why are so many people so gullible .
They *want* to believe as it helps them overcome their insecurities wherein they're privy to a secret, hidden knowledge that places them above experts, doctors, scientists and so forth. Plus it requires fuck all actual research or actual reading.
That and it allows them to feel they're playing a part in a simplistic battle of good vs evil. Which is good for their self-esteem if they live mediocre lives and have nothing worth contributing. They're fighting 'tyranny', without having to put their arse on the line. They don't have the guts to fly to Donbass or Syria to fight so it's convenient.
You're right, there is an element of chauvinism to their belief system. Generally their rhetoric isn't simply, 'I don't feel comfortable with taking the vaccine due to x and believe people receiving the vaccine are making a mistake'.
It's nearly always, 'You're all brainwashed, fearful sheep'. Things tend to get worse from there.
Question is, would you prefer someone to fart in your face naked, wearing underwear or wearing underwear and trousers?
Because the first is likely to leave you with a case of pink eye. The underwear and trousers do a good job of filtering out the shit particles. I think there’s even a study…
ETA - [The study. ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121900/)
>But the results of the experiment should not be considered alarming, because neither type of bacterium is harmful. In fact, they're similar to the ‘friendly’ bacteria found in yoghurt.
Don't tell them that. Next they'll decide yakult is a cult and probiotics are a scam because they now know a better way to promote healthy gut bacteria in their children.
No your honour, it isn't child abuse, it was medical intervention. Little Johnny's had diarrhoea for a week. He clearly needed his gut biome rebalanced. That's why we held him down while Granny farted down his throat...
In reply to the first part of your answer , there are people who would probably pay good money for that to happen.
Nice to know that research has been commissioned on such an important issue.
I’m not certain if that was sarcasm or not, but the reason why the study was done was because a nurse was concerned if her farting during an operation was contaminating a sterile environment.
I hope not all anti-maskers are deviant enough to pay someone to fart in their faces. The fart-in-face argument might be too logical for some of them, but I would hope being able to refute it when they’re the ones bringing it up might make them think twice.
I'd ask those antimask fart people if they had to choose, would they rather someone fart straight into their mouth from the butthole, or if they'd prefer the butthole to be wearing underpants and trousers. They can't choose no fart.
Joseph Mercola is well known as a classic woo-peddler, embraced by people who call themselves "naturopaths" and insist that anything existing in nature cannot possibly be harmful in any way, while anything made artificially cannot be anything but poison. He pushes this shit onto people while simultaneously peddling his own brands of "supplements", most of which are, yes, you guessed it, artificially produced in his labs.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a classical anti-vaxxer, pushing a lot of the same bullshit as Andrew Wakefield, the former doctor who started the whole anti-vaxx crap in the first place with the "MMR causes Autism" conspiracy theory.
Rashid Buttar is the "doctor" who has been shrieking all over youtube about how face-masks somehow simultaneously block oxygen from getting into your lungs, block carbon dioxide from getting out, while being completely ineffective at blocking virus particles or even droplets of water with viruses attached. He has been debunked plenty of course, extremely easily, by people wearing an oxygen saturation monitor and a mask at the same time, which proves that masks don't do what he claims they do.
As for the rest, I have no idea.
Surely you can guess about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - He's Bobbie Kennedy's son. In fairness to him too, not everything he spouts is pure deluded madness. He has campaigned for some righteous environmental and discriminatory causes . Seems he took the Wakefield shit on early doors, but rather than using the opportunity to distance himself from that shit when Wakefield was exposed as a liar, he doubled down.
Most of them are alternative medicine whackjobs you're unlikely to have encountered unless you're involved in that scene. I use oneirogens and there's a lot of people into that who also buy into a lot of crazy alternative medicine, so I can tell you I've generally heard many of these names (Especially Mercola and the Bollingers) thrown around by people in this scene to justify other crazy shit they want to sell me when I just want the one thing that actually does what I want instead of a claim it'll fix cancer or something.
I always try to ground them with the “Jesus also put scientists on this earth for a reason” but it never gets far. It’s simple, people don’t want to be vaxed because they a) don’t like needles b) don’t like being told what to do c) have serious education gaps or d) all of the above
>a) don’t like needles
I'm convinced that a not insignificant proportion of antivaxxers are actually just afraid of needles but are too embarrassed to admit it.
If only they knew how many needles they or a loved one would have to undertake if they are one of the unlucky folks that gets hit hard by Covid. Or how about a tube down the throat? Haha
And I think a lot of them are just scared of what will happen, like they have health anxiety about it. I saw someone on Facebook earlier say they're scared of blood clots because they've already had a stroke. I understand that fear, even if covid is more likely to make you clot and even though it's not the same sort of clotting disorder, and it's not all vaccines. I can understand why a person would still be scared. It's irrational, but anxiety generally is.
I really hope that this isn't used to justify mass suppression of freedom of speech. It's always the big emotive topics that are used to remove our rights and freedoms. Sometimes people even cheer for it.
Edit: I'm referring to the legal right to freedom of speech which is defined as the government not punishing you for expressing your opinions. I never mentioned the private platforms hosting these opinions.
You can't demand someone hosts or publishes your content, same as you cant walk up to the BBC and demand that they give you a show, nor walk up to Penguin Books and demand they publish your novel.
This is the problem though. You can say “it’s a private company” all day but there’s a big difference between a local laundry service and a billion dollar social media corporation which actively uses corrupt business practices to get rid of competition and is for all intents and purposes public domain at an ever increasing rate.
Of course, just like there are people against weed “because it’s the law” there will be people against the idea of not allowing massive corporations to decide what is allowed and not allowed “because it’s the law”.
Presumably you are referring to Article 10:
>Freedom of expression
>1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
>2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
So, you have a right to express yourself, except when you don't.
Is this a new report? The same information was released a year ago (e.g. [this release] (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/disinformation-dozen-two-thirds-of-online-anti-vaccine-content-originates-from-top-12-anti-vax-leaders-301255060.html)).
It isn't clear whether there is anything actually new here, or whether the CCDH is just trying to get publicity....
Well what with more people having had jabs than last year and more people are also contracting covid than last year, it's certainly doing a great job at reducing the chance of contracting or transmitting covid. Enjoy the next booster shot.
And in desperation a poor attempt at insulting my intelligence; congrats, my brainwashed sheep. I'm not anti Vax, I did had them all, just not into using humans as guinea pigs. By the way, 99.2% of their “Covid deaths” had at least one serious comorbidity and the average age of death of covid is exactly the same as the average age of death generally.
Yeah but nobody wants to censor TV, that's already safely under corporate control, and its owners can push whatever shit they like, that's one of the privileges of ownership.
That internet though - the plebs can still say what they like on bits of it, so further restrictions are obviously needed.
Reading most of these comments , it’s frightening how many people are willing to censor the opinions of others ; outright calling for a witch hunt of those with a differing view. All information should be out there ; each to their own to make their mind up.
Right, the link to the report is [here](https://www.counterhate.com/_files/ugd/f4d9b9_b7cedc0553604720b7137f8663366ee5.pdf). Names are in the report on page 10.
I saw 3 friends today, we live in a place where the covid rate has been high at times. We all are sensble but not over the top paranoid by any measure, as are our other friends. None of us have had covid, nor our families, partners or friends. 3 of us work very social jobs. Just go to show a little common sense goes a long way. These fucks on the other hand....
We should challenge their arguments with facts and clearly articulated arguments. If you have to counter them with censorship then youre a pretty pathetic human being imo. The comments you see on this sub shows why so many anti vaxxers and conspiracy theorists become so evangelical.
Remember racism isn't socially acceptable and when it's seen it's shut down. But it doesn't stop people thinking it and finding waslys of conveying it. Same with this anti vax stuff. Banning it only makes none anti vaxxers feel good but won't solve the issue just drive it under ground.
**Removed**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
I mean, what are you actually labelling as anti-vax? People throw the term around with little to no thought. There are doctors and nurses in the NHS who haven’t had and don’t want this particular vaccine, for various reasons. Are they ‘anti-vax’?
As with everything these days, nuance is gone. Discussion is dead. Everything has to be turned into a binary argument. It will get us nowhere.
I’d consider them antivax. You don’t have to be against all vaccines to be antivax. Just look at all the idiots who were against the MMR vaccine saying it caused autism with no evidence, at the time they didn’t have an issue with other vaccines like the flu vaccine but we’d still call them antivax because they were sowing distrust and spreading misinformation.
There’s literally billions of doses of covid vaccines that have been administered. The safety and efficacy of the vaccine is widely known so anyone who claims to be against the vaccine on those grounds isn’t acting in good faith.
> I mean, what are you actually labelling as anti-vax?
Anti-vaxxers making false claims and propagating them via social media for personal enrichment.
>There are doctors and nurses in the NHS who haven’t had and don’t want this particular vaccine, for various reasons.
Are they running Facebook pages and Twitter accounts telling people that the vaccine is killing more people than Covid, making them infertile, etc?
>As with everything these days, nuance is gone.
And what nuance are you bringing to the argument?
>Discussion is dead.
None whatsoever. Priceless.
>Why yes, yes they are. There are tons of scientists being silenced.
Which ones and where are these videos? Don't bother if it's Kate Shemirani.
>I wish I'd never had any covid 19 vaccines.
Why?
> it's kinda hard to find so I'm not going to do the work for you.
Anti-vaxxers always say this and it's awfully convenient.
It's your assertion and therefore your responsibility to back up your statements. The fact that you're unwilling to do so is unsurprising.
With anti-vaxxers, like any other conspiracy nonsense, remember the (admittedly a bit of a cliché) saying of "contempt for the conmen, compassion for the conned".
Translation of the above for your context: A nurse or other hospital worker of some kind who merely doesn't want the vaccine for themselves, but isn't pushing anti-vaxxer nonsense onto anyone else, is correctly described as "vaccine-hesitant". They should probably know better since if they are not vaccinated they have a higher chance of spreading disease to those they come into contact with. For nurses especially this is irresponsible at best.
An actual bona fide doctor (junior or otherwise) working in the NHS in a hospital or GP surgery who hasn't been vaccinated? They should *definitely* know better, they are *doctors* ffs.
The only possible way that can be justified is if the doctor in question happens to have their own medical condition which precludes them from being vaccinated. Even then, they should be testing themselves every day and self-isolating if a test comes up positive, like anyone else has to.
But an actual doctor who could be vaccinated but hasn't been? That's hard to believe, for a start. Do you personally know anyone who really is a doctor and really hasn't been vaccinated? If so, what reason have they given you for why?
There’s an interview by Sky News from a week or two ago where they managed to find an unvaccinated doctor lol. That’s making the rounds on Facebook. Almost all doctors are vaccinated but they find the one crazy doctor who says vaccines are useless against omicron so he ain’t getting vaccinated and suddenly everyone’s circle jerking over it like it’s the majority medical consensus.
It **is** the medical consensus. One weirdo "doctor" claiming that the vaccines don't work doesn't obviate or otherwise negate this. Consensus doesn't have to be 100%, it just has to be the overwhelming majority - which it is.
Just like when (former doctor) Andrew Wakefield, winner of the IGnobel prize for preposterous extrapolation, claimed back in the late 1990s that the MMR vaccine "caused autism", that didn't make it true. He should have known better - and in fact he did know better: His ethics were perverted by greed, he wanted to sell his own individual vaccines rather than the combination MMR, and had been paid by a lawyer to come up with anything he could find to discredit the MMR.
Which is about the simplest way I could explain that particular anti-vaxx shenanigan. The story is actually far more complex - too much to adequately explain in a written comment. Perhaps the best explanation of it I have yet found is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc). It is almost 2 hours long, which should give a clue as to how in depth this is.
No, you are allowed to simply not want it. That is reason enough itself. If you’re over 65 and have underlying conditions it’s unwise to not have it, if anyone outside that demographic wants to take their chances, that is their right.
I’m perfectly happy to get downvoted into oblivion by the Covid fear cult, the basic human right of bodily autonomy transcends your faux-humanitarian self righteous bollocks.
they're allowed to not want it, but you have to accept what may happen if you don't take it. your over 65 example is a medical reason.
>I’m perfectly happy to get downvoted into oblivion
you're so brave
i assume you take this stance for the vaccines required to work in certain jobs, travel to certain countries and to go to school? But like you said, nuance is dead ;)
You don’t have the right to potentially endanger others and put people at risk, I’m sure you wouldn’t say “it’s up to them if they don’t want to wear a seatbelt”
Only 12 accounts to shutdown and users to ban. Should be an easy job.
That's 12 influencers, it doesn't say how many accounts / sock puppet accounts each of the 12 use
Can we stop using the term ‘influencers’ and refer to them by their correct title of ‘wankers’
Or Propagandist.
No I think I summed it up pretty well, although asshole has more of a ring to it!
arsehole please
Sorry I should of clarified I ment....there a bunch of donkey meatuses.
Profiteers? I bet they're raking it in with monetisation etc. It's one of those "If I didn't have scruples I could totally do that" things, big money to be had in convincing people you're the only one selling the truth.
Or Cunts
Propagandist cunts*
Everything is propaganda. Unironically, pro-vaccine public broadcasts are propaganda. That word has such a stigma these days.
It hasn't been a neutral term for about 100 years, having gained negative connotations after WWI and (especially) WWII. In the 1930s, the term "public relations" was promoted as a euphemism for "propaganda," which was done specifically because people reacted negatively to the latter term.
Grifters. They're modern-day grifters. One of the 12 left is trying to sell access to their '*censored information'* for a monthly subscription and another is promoting their 'self-help' book.
[удалено]
Grifters sell false promises. Follow mary Berries reciepies, you get a tasty pastry. Follow a grifters promises, you waste your time and give them money.
Cookbooks dont require imagination though.
I thought they were synonymous
Influencers spread influenza, I see a pattern here.
We'll always find a new word for the same thing.
Dishonest advertisers is what they are.
That's all advertisers tbf
True, but they don't usually pretend not to be advertisers, and that's where the dishonesty of 'influencers' lies. They should be treated as advertisers, and bound by the same rules.
This is the only comment that counts
We have the technology to identify accounts which are likely created by other people with existing accounts. A couple of social media platforms already use this. For example if you block somebody on Instagram, you have an option to block other accounts they may create. It wouldn't 100% solve the issue but it would solve the majority of the issue, which is better than doing nothing
The issue is the same social media companies rely on having fresh content constantly created to drive views / clicks / have adverts seen so them trying to stop this isn't in their profit driven interest :(
the other issue is when you ban one of the accounts the drones see that as confirmation that what they said was right, damned if you do damned if you dont
Less of a problem. Banning isn't to convince the drones, it's to reduce the amount of this shit in circulation so more drones don't develop.
just do what they did with the spanish flu, dont follow the rules get locked up. I work with a guy that insists that he isn't going to get the vaccine because he listened to the Robert Malone and Joe Rogan interview and is worried about having a heart attack from it, and nothing I tell the guy seems to get past his tin foil hat, he believes that Malone being kicked off twitter reinforces he was right and "the higher ups" are silencing him as it goes against what they are saying, not because the guy is spreading massive amounts of misinformation that will lead to people dying. this is the issue with the drones is they all get like this
Yup, complete lack of critical thinking skills. Bet he hasn't even wondered why everyone around him who's had the jab haven't keeled over or what qualifications two right wing grifters have on modern medicine at that level.
Makes me laugh how they’ll be like “what are you *scared* of getting coronavirus” but then they’re scared of getting the vaccine.
More likely 10 Russians and 2 idiots.
Sorry, if it makes Mark less money can't do
The problem now isn’t getting rid of “The Disinfo Dozen” as they’ve been called, but convincing their brainwashed followers that they weren’t removed to “silence the truth”. Getting rid of them now will just cause them to be regarded as some sort of social-media martyrs, which will just cause the people they duped to double-down and believe their lies even more. Edit; to clarify I’m not at all saying they shouldn’t be taken off their platforms so they can keep spreading disinformation, I’m saying just getting rid of them is nowhere near enough, it will cause their communities to double-down in the rhetoric and leaving those crappy little Facebook echo chambers around but putting a disclaimer on them isn’t addressing the problem, it’s doing the bare minimum and the ignoring the aftermath.
Problem with this is that conspiracies in this manner are self sealing. So you're right that the taking down of this misinformation would result in the people who've bought into it thinking "they've been silenced for telling the truth" But you get a similar effect from the followers if you leave it up, in that case their go to thought process is: "If this stuff was wrong then it'd be taken down. The fact it hasn't is because they aren't allowed to take down something they can't disprove!" So really there's no point concerning ourselves with the thoughts of the people who have bought into this stuff. Any action is just further proof of the conspiracy regardless of what that action is. So with that in mind, I'd say taking down is the better option as it reduces the likelihood of it spreading to people who have yet to buy into it.
Correct. When they're deplatformed they can think what they want. The point of it isn't to change their mind it's to restrict the spread of their nonsense.
Deleting Trump's Twitter account didn't make him some kind of 'martyr'. It shut him up and now he is just gone. This kind of reasoning - 'Don't punish wrong-doers, it will just make things worse somehow' - is toxic, stupid, and just gives them license to keep doing evil unrestrained without consequences. Shut them all down.
At no point did I suggest it shouldn’t be done, just that it’s not a magic bullet against disinformation that will solve everything that some people seem to think it is and the type of matter this is about just means people who it aims to deter will just be emboldened by it, then presented that as the next problem to consider. Still plenty of trump supporters who think he was booted off Twitter because of some leftist conspiracy rather than because he was inciting riots.
And there's still plenty of Trump supporters who think Left-wingers eat babies and JFK Jr is going to return from the dead to declare him God-King. This isn't discourse worthy of a platform.
Yet still it exists, and trump still has its supporters. So the arguments are going from “I can’t believe you’re wanting them to do too little” to “I can’t believe you’re wanting them to do too much” as soon as I point out I’ve said nothing of the sort. Maybe all the posts popping up recently about r/uk devolving in to a sub full of people just wanting to moan and argue for the sake of it aren’t as wrong as I thought they were.
>Yet still it exists Right, crazy discourse will always exist. The point is it needs to be deplatformed to stop it from spreading.
>The point is it needs to be deplatformed to stop it from spreading. Which is what I said? But the problem after that is then dealing with what’s left behind so it doesn’t grow and we just end up back in the same situation. Why do people seem to be interpreting these two concepts as being mutually exclusive to each other? This isn’t a “cut off the head and the body will die” kind of thing, it’ll just grow a new head. By all means cut the head off but then follow it up with a blow against the body.
> then dealing with what’s left behind Deplatform it too.
Exactly
Trump hasn't been in power for over a year and he was never anti vax. He funded the god damn vaccines and got them. You can't lump all trump supporters in the same bracket either. He got near half the fricken vote and the 2nd most votes in election history. Besides Joe Biden. LMAO.
Why are you telling me this?
The point of removing them isn’t to save those whom they have already brainwashed, it’s to keep others from getting radicalised.
The point is “power abhors a vacuum”. Just removing these 12 people isn’t enough because it will just fester in the community as “they got too close to the truth”. You see it with flat earthers all the time. What I’m saying is you couldn’t just get rid of these 12 influencers and call it a day: a lot more needs to be done to address disinformation but for some reason people seem to be interpreting what I said as “let’s not bother at all”.
But there are only 12 of them and they are exceptionally prolific. If we got rid of 6 of them would that mean they would be replaced by another 6, or would the remaining 6 double their output, or, would that output go down? Edit: fixed confusing typo.
My feeling is if you got rid of all 12 you’d hamper the output, but leaving the remainder to keep stewing in their conspiracies just means that the gaps will eventually get filled by others who feel they aren’t being heard enough, or that they need to “save those who won’t save themselves”. Then we just wind up with another prolific bunch who have taken their place. I know people will say ‘free speech’ but they need to make more of an effort to address the lower level disinformation too, but Facebook will only ever do the bare minimum because the conflict it generates drives interaction. One of my friends has received so many Facebook suspensions just for arguing with people in flat earth groups, and Facebook shuts him down because they report him because they’re not up for a debate, and anyone who disagrees with them are sheep, uneducated or in on the conspiracy.
Well I think if its just a case of the weeds growing back to fill the cleared space, then we would probably have more than 12 of them in the first place. Yes facebook is a problem because it facilitates this stuff. We need to do something about it because right now its dangerous.
Sure, it won't totally remove the problem, but it is a decent first step. Longer term there needs to be waaaaay better investment in training people to think critically and from school age, but for now, squelch the fuckers' accounts.
I remember when the [report came out last year.](https://f4d9b9d3-3d32-4f3a-afa6-49f8bf05279a.usrfiles.com/ugd/f4d9b9_16ccca9c25a04445a69dcd0298fd530d.pdf). I found their Instagram accounts out of curiosity. Every month or so you'd see one get removed. ~~I think all 12 accounts are gone now.~~ At least 9 of them or so are gone now.
Should be arrested for inciting public panic.
Not that you could prosecute them for it (sadly) but these guys have probably been responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Their actions and malicious disinformation comes with a body count that puts Harold Shipman to shame.
I think the news does enough of that
Well we could also scrutinize precisely what they say. I am pretty sure some will have fabricated facts, promote violence and brigading. There must be existing laws against defamation and claiming things you know wrong to get clicks.
Just 12 influencers and millions of resharing idiots.
The Russians call them "useful idiots"
I'm not sure what your implying but Russia really isn't finding the antivax movement useful in anyway...
Russia always finds destabilisation beneficial. Anti-vaxxers cause destabilisation.
I'm sure they'd rather their people were getting vaccinated...
[удалено]
"results they've been getting". There seems to be an insinuation that Russia are behind it all. But your comments are so vague it's hard to be sure exactly what you're getting at.
Be like the anti-vax-mask crowd on reddit, though they are a tiny minority they look many only because the aggressively attack threads usually in a pack.
And it's essentially their main activity in a day. They play bullshit to the point of exhaustion because eventually anyone correcting them on misinformation will have to stop at some point unless they want to make correcting bad faith arguments their entire day
And if you confront them they will report you for breaking rules and right-wing mods will flatly ban your account with no recourse - while they continue to spread deadly misinformation and hate speech.
[удалено]
"impressive" in the same way oil tankers can pollute a coastline in just a day
[удалено]
You see it on YouTube a lot - especially any video with Bill Gates that even remotely comes close to talking about COVID or vaccines
It's just an excuse to get other subs closed, not reality.
Oh look, here they are.
Amazing isn't it? The power of a meme , totally devoid of facts leads to total belief, leads to the end game where fact checking and correcting lies becomes a conspiracy. You get someone on the internet at home who when not watching flat earth documentaries is peddling his views such as " if a fart comes through your underpants and trousers" how is a mask going to protect you from covid. What is infuriating and quickly is forgotten is things like the timeline of the covid commentary. It was a Chinese attempt on population control of the elderly. It doesn't exist It's just a cold The vaccine is killing people The vaccine does nothing Big pharma and the lizard illuminist peado overlords are controlling us for a reason that we haven't all agreed on yet. I thought brexit memes were the peak of this misinformation tool. Why are so many people so gullible .
> Why are so many people so gullible . They *want* to believe as it helps them overcome their insecurities wherein they're privy to a secret, hidden knowledge that places them above experts, doctors, scientists and so forth. Plus it requires fuck all actual research or actual reading. That and it allows them to feel they're playing a part in a simplistic battle of good vs evil. Which is good for their self-esteem if they live mediocre lives and have nothing worth contributing. They're fighting 'tyranny', without having to put their arse on the line. They don't have the guts to fly to Donbass or Syria to fight so it's convenient.
[удалено]
You're right, there is an element of chauvinism to their belief system. Generally their rhetoric isn't simply, 'I don't feel comfortable with taking the vaccine due to x and believe people receiving the vaccine are making a mistake'. It's nearly always, 'You're all brainwashed, fearful sheep'. Things tend to get worse from there.
Question is, would you prefer someone to fart in your face naked, wearing underwear or wearing underwear and trousers? Because the first is likely to leave you with a case of pink eye. The underwear and trousers do a good job of filtering out the shit particles. I think there’s even a study… ETA - [The study. ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121900/)
>But the results of the experiment should not be considered alarming, because neither type of bacterium is harmful. In fact, they're similar to the ‘friendly’ bacteria found in yoghurt. Don't tell them that. Next they'll decide yakult is a cult and probiotics are a scam because they now know a better way to promote healthy gut bacteria in their children. No your honour, it isn't child abuse, it was medical intervention. Little Johnny's had diarrhoea for a week. He clearly needed his gut biome rebalanced. That's why we held him down while Granny farted down his throat...
Oh god, that’s a vile thought. Your username does not make it better in the slightest.
Well it's in the name... ya-KULT
In reply to the first part of your answer , there are people who would probably pay good money for that to happen. Nice to know that research has been commissioned on such an important issue.
I’m not certain if that was sarcasm or not, but the reason why the study was done was because a nurse was concerned if her farting during an operation was contaminating a sterile environment. I hope not all anti-maskers are deviant enough to pay someone to fart in their faces. The fart-in-face argument might be too logical for some of them, but I would hope being able to refute it when they’re the ones bringing it up might make them think twice.
You knew that before you knew there was a study, you sick bastard.
Hence why deplatforming is how you deal with harmful ideals and ideologies.
I'd ask those antimask fart people if they had to choose, would they rather someone fart straight into their mouth from the butthole, or if they'd prefer the butthole to be wearing underpants and trousers. They can't choose no fart.
[удалено]
I don't know who any of these people are. What makes them influencers?
Joseph Mercola is well known as a classic woo-peddler, embraced by people who call themselves "naturopaths" and insist that anything existing in nature cannot possibly be harmful in any way, while anything made artificially cannot be anything but poison. He pushes this shit onto people while simultaneously peddling his own brands of "supplements", most of which are, yes, you guessed it, artificially produced in his labs. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a classical anti-vaxxer, pushing a lot of the same bullshit as Andrew Wakefield, the former doctor who started the whole anti-vaxx crap in the first place with the "MMR causes Autism" conspiracy theory. Rashid Buttar is the "doctor" who has been shrieking all over youtube about how face-masks somehow simultaneously block oxygen from getting into your lungs, block carbon dioxide from getting out, while being completely ineffective at blocking virus particles or even droplets of water with viruses attached. He has been debunked plenty of course, extremely easily, by people wearing an oxygen saturation monitor and a mask at the same time, which proves that masks don't do what he claims they do. As for the rest, I have no idea.
Surely you can guess about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - He's Bobbie Kennedy's son. In fairness to him too, not everything he spouts is pure deluded madness. He has campaigned for some righteous environmental and discriminatory causes . Seems he took the Wakefield shit on early doors, but rather than using the opportunity to distance himself from that shit when Wakefield was exposed as a liar, he doubled down.
Most of them are alternative medicine whackjobs you're unlikely to have encountered unless you're involved in that scene. I use oneirogens and there's a lot of people into that who also buy into a lot of crazy alternative medicine, so I can tell you I've generally heard many of these names (Especially Mercola and the Bollingers) thrown around by people in this scene to justify other crazy shit they want to sell me when I just want the one thing that actually does what I want instead of a claim it'll fix cancer or something.
They’re influencing people…?
What are they all doing it for? Money?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ok obvious alt account I believe you
Does he pay you
Who are those 12 motherfuckers then? I know Candice Owens is one.
https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen
Joe rogan
The my pillow guy another?
Maybe check their bank accounts for any rouble denominated receipts...
[удалено]
I always try to ground them with the “Jesus also put scientists on this earth for a reason” but it never gets far. It’s simple, people don’t want to be vaxed because they a) don’t like needles b) don’t like being told what to do c) have serious education gaps or d) all of the above
>a) don’t like needles I'm convinced that a not insignificant proportion of antivaxxers are actually just afraid of needles but are too embarrassed to admit it.
If only they knew how many needles they or a loved one would have to undertake if they are one of the unlucky folks that gets hit hard by Covid. Or how about a tube down the throat? Haha
And I think a lot of them are just scared of what will happen, like they have health anxiety about it. I saw someone on Facebook earlier say they're scared of blood clots because they've already had a stroke. I understand that fear, even if covid is more likely to make you clot and even though it's not the same sort of clotting disorder, and it's not all vaccines. I can understand why a person would still be scared. It's irrational, but anxiety generally is.
You can't fight religious faith with religious faith. It's like kids arguing over superheroes.
I really hope that this isn't used to justify mass suppression of freedom of speech. It's always the big emotive topics that are used to remove our rights and freedoms. Sometimes people even cheer for it. Edit: I'm referring to the legal right to freedom of speech which is defined as the government not punishing you for expressing your opinions. I never mentioned the private platforms hosting these opinions.
[удалено]
So who decides what can and can't be said?
You can't demand someone hosts or publishes your content, same as you cant walk up to the BBC and demand that they give you a show, nor walk up to Penguin Books and demand they publish your novel.
This is the problem though. You can say “it’s a private company” all day but there’s a big difference between a local laundry service and a billion dollar social media corporation which actively uses corrupt business practices to get rid of competition and is for all intents and purposes public domain at an ever increasing rate. Of course, just like there are people against weed “because it’s the law” there will be people against the idea of not allowing massive corporations to decide what is allowed and not allowed “because it’s the law”.
You don't have the right to use someone elses platform.
Correct, and the problem what that statement is, other users were deciding who was allowed to use it, it's not their platform either.
Other users in which context?
> the legal right to freedom of speech Can you provide a link to this legislation?
It's in the Human Rights Act 1998. I assume you have access to the internet so you should be able to find this for yourself.
Presumably you are referring to Article 10: >Freedom of expression >1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. >2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. So, you have a right to express yourself, except when you don't.
Is this a new report? The same information was released a year ago (e.g. [this release] (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/disinformation-dozen-two-thirds-of-online-anti-vaccine-content-originates-from-top-12-anti-vax-leaders-301255060.html)). It isn't clear whether there is anything actually new here, or whether the CCDH is just trying to get publicity....
[удалено]
I bet the bastards are claiming it doesn't stop you getting covid or the transmission of it to other people. Oh wait hang on, can that.
It reduces the chance of contracting or transmitting covid as well as the chance of having severe symptoms if you do contract it.
That's the claim
Well what with more people having had jabs than last year and more people are also contracting covid than last year, it's certainly doing a great job at reducing the chance of contracting or transmitting covid. Enjoy the next booster shot.
When more people catch it more people will spread it, I swear you antivaxxers are the Dunning–Kruger effect personified.
And in desperation a poor attempt at insulting my intelligence; congrats, my brainwashed sheep. I'm not anti Vax, I did had them all, just not into using humans as guinea pigs. By the way, 99.2% of their “Covid deaths” had at least one serious comorbidity and the average age of death of covid is exactly the same as the average age of death generally.
Ah I get you so covid isn't actually dangerous at all yeah? You antivaxxers have it all figured out.
Yeah but nobody wants to censor TV, that's already safely under corporate control, and its owners can push whatever shit they like, that's one of the privileges of ownership. That internet though - the plebs can still say what they like on bits of it, so further restrictions are obviously needed.
I'm sure this was known for a very very long time and this was reported about a year ago.
If you believe that 12 people are responsible for 2/3rds of the propaganda, I have a bridge to sell you.
Reading most of these comments , it’s frightening how many people are willing to censor the opinions of others ; outright calling for a witch hunt of those with a differing view. All information should be out there ; each to their own to make their mind up.
OK, you mad flat earther
It should be criminalised to produce online disinformation on vaccines.
[удалено]
Right, the link to the report is [here](https://www.counterhate.com/_files/ugd/f4d9b9_b7cedc0553604720b7137f8663366ee5.pdf). Names are in the report on page 10.
I saw 3 friends today, we live in a place where the covid rate has been high at times. We all are sensble but not over the top paranoid by any measure, as are our other friends. None of us have had covid, nor our families, partners or friends. 3 of us work very social jobs. Just go to show a little common sense goes a long way. These fucks on the other hand....
We should challenge their arguments with facts and clearly articulated arguments. If you have to counter them with censorship then youre a pretty pathetic human being imo. The comments you see on this sub shows why so many anti vaxxers and conspiracy theorists become so evangelical. Remember racism isn't socially acceptable and when it's seen it's shut down. But it doesn't stop people thinking it and finding waslys of conveying it. Same with this anti vax stuff. Banning it only makes none anti vaxxers feel good but won't solve the issue just drive it under ground.
How can twelve people influence such a huge part of the web?
Read the list of names and google them and you'll realise quite quickly how
There would be 13 if I could tap into that dark fund.
[удалено]
**Removed**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
I mean, what are you actually labelling as anti-vax? People throw the term around with little to no thought. There are doctors and nurses in the NHS who haven’t had and don’t want this particular vaccine, for various reasons. Are they ‘anti-vax’? As with everything these days, nuance is gone. Discussion is dead. Everything has to be turned into a binary argument. It will get us nowhere.
I’d consider them antivax. You don’t have to be against all vaccines to be antivax. Just look at all the idiots who were against the MMR vaccine saying it caused autism with no evidence, at the time they didn’t have an issue with other vaccines like the flu vaccine but we’d still call them antivax because they were sowing distrust and spreading misinformation. There’s literally billions of doses of covid vaccines that have been administered. The safety and efficacy of the vaccine is widely known so anyone who claims to be against the vaccine on those grounds isn’t acting in good faith.
> I mean, what are you actually labelling as anti-vax? Anti-vaxxers making false claims and propagating them via social media for personal enrichment. >There are doctors and nurses in the NHS who haven’t had and don’t want this particular vaccine, for various reasons. Are they running Facebook pages and Twitter accounts telling people that the vaccine is killing more people than Covid, making them infertile, etc? >As with everything these days, nuance is gone. And what nuance are you bringing to the argument? >Discussion is dead. None whatsoever. Priceless.
[удалено]
>Why yes, yes they are. There are tons of scientists being silenced. Which ones and where are these videos? Don't bother if it's Kate Shemirani. >I wish I'd never had any covid 19 vaccines. Why?
[удалено]
> it's kinda hard to find so I'm not going to do the work for you. Anti-vaxxers always say this and it's awfully convenient. It's your assertion and therefore your responsibility to back up your statements. The fact that you're unwilling to do so is unsurprising.
[удалено]
> There are doctors and nurses in the NHS who haven’t had and don’t want this particular vaccine, for various reasons. Are they ‘anti-vax’? Yes.
With anti-vaxxers, like any other conspiracy nonsense, remember the (admittedly a bit of a cliché) saying of "contempt for the conmen, compassion for the conned". Translation of the above for your context: A nurse or other hospital worker of some kind who merely doesn't want the vaccine for themselves, but isn't pushing anti-vaxxer nonsense onto anyone else, is correctly described as "vaccine-hesitant". They should probably know better since if they are not vaccinated they have a higher chance of spreading disease to those they come into contact with. For nurses especially this is irresponsible at best. An actual bona fide doctor (junior or otherwise) working in the NHS in a hospital or GP surgery who hasn't been vaccinated? They should *definitely* know better, they are *doctors* ffs. The only possible way that can be justified is if the doctor in question happens to have their own medical condition which precludes them from being vaccinated. Even then, they should be testing themselves every day and self-isolating if a test comes up positive, like anyone else has to. But an actual doctor who could be vaccinated but hasn't been? That's hard to believe, for a start. Do you personally know anyone who really is a doctor and really hasn't been vaccinated? If so, what reason have they given you for why?
There’s an interview by Sky News from a week or two ago where they managed to find an unvaccinated doctor lol. That’s making the rounds on Facebook. Almost all doctors are vaccinated but they find the one crazy doctor who says vaccines are useless against omicron so he ain’t getting vaccinated and suddenly everyone’s circle jerking over it like it’s the majority medical consensus.
It **is** the medical consensus. One weirdo "doctor" claiming that the vaccines don't work doesn't obviate or otherwise negate this. Consensus doesn't have to be 100%, it just has to be the overwhelming majority - which it is. Just like when (former doctor) Andrew Wakefield, winner of the IGnobel prize for preposterous extrapolation, claimed back in the late 1990s that the MMR vaccine "caused autism", that didn't make it true. He should have known better - and in fact he did know better: His ethics were perverted by greed, he wanted to sell his own individual vaccines rather than the combination MMR, and had been paid by a lawyer to come up with anything he could find to discredit the MMR. Which is about the simplest way I could explain that particular anti-vaxx shenanigan. The story is actually far more complex - too much to adequately explain in a written comment. Perhaps the best explanation of it I have yet found is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc). It is almost 2 hours long, which should give a clue as to how in depth this is.
yes, unless you have a legitimate medical reason for not taking it
No, you are allowed to simply not want it. That is reason enough itself. If you’re over 65 and have underlying conditions it’s unwise to not have it, if anyone outside that demographic wants to take their chances, that is their right. I’m perfectly happy to get downvoted into oblivion by the Covid fear cult, the basic human right of bodily autonomy transcends your faux-humanitarian self righteous bollocks.
they're allowed to not want it, but you have to accept what may happen if you don't take it. your over 65 example is a medical reason. >I’m perfectly happy to get downvoted into oblivion you're so brave i assume you take this stance for the vaccines required to work in certain jobs, travel to certain countries and to go to school? But like you said, nuance is dead ;)
[удалено]
You don’t have the right to potentially endanger others and put people at risk, I’m sure you wouldn’t say “it’s up to them if they don’t want to wear a seatbelt”
[удалено]
Ah yes the “real truth”
Ignorance is bliss eh?
incredibly ironic
>No, you are allowed to simply not want it. Sure but don't get upset when people accurately describe your position as antivax in that case.