Should Social Media shut down Conspiracy Theories?

Nurses COVID

Updated:   Published

should-social-media-shut-down-conspiracy.jpg.229e82ef23de8227b596ecd92c7c1989.jpg

I understand that private entities can control what speech is put on their media. But is that a wise idea not to air alternative points of view on huge powerhouses such as Youtube, facebook, Twitter Etc?

I'm thinking specifically of this Plandemic lady. I, personally, have not viewed her video. I'm not interested in her particular point of view. I have never felt the need to investigate every conspiracy theory out there.

I do think there is a lot of paranoia in sothat might be well earned. Social media such as facebook and Youtube wield enormous power and influence over public opinion.

The government has pulled a lot of sneaky tricks on the public over the years. I don't trust them. I also don't trust the Chinese government.

I don't trust large pharmaceutical companies or the mega-corporations. Their lust for money, power and influence is insatiable.

Should we give social media giants, who practically hold monopolies on the public form, the abilities to shut down conspiracy theories? I'll bet there are some true ones out there.

2 minutes ago, GamerNurseRN said:

"Misinformation" is defined as anything that doesn't fit the "We're all gonna die if we don't bankrupt the country" narrative.

No it isn't and you lose credibility with statements like this. There is misinformation coming from both sides. Statements like this are not conducive to intelligent discussions.

5 Votes
Specializes in ER.
1 minute ago, Wuzzie said:

No it isn't and you lose credibility with statements like this. There is misinformation coming from both sides. Statements like this are not conducive to intelligent discussions.

I found that statement quite amusing.

0 Votes
5 minutes ago, Emergent said:

I found that statement quite amusing.

Amusing but a bit polarizing. So far this has been a pretty good discussion. I'd like to keep it going but it won't if people start sniping at each other.

3 Votes

(somebody upthread asked if social media platforms have an obligation to publish untruths)


What is “truth”? How does it differ from “fact”? What happens when a lot of people know *some* but not *all* facts concerning a particular issue?

What part does philosophy play in all this? Are mere facts enough, ie bits of data? Or do we need to sift through the facts available, to analyze, to prioritize?

What happens when people look at the available facts, but come to different conclusions? What about facts that are obtained by unethical means?

1 Votes
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
2 hours ago, Emergent said:

So, facebook removed a group page advocating for opening up the state of Michigan from the strict quarantine.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/facebook-deletes-michigan-anti-quarantine-group?utm_content=buffer812a8&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fb-theblaze

This was posted on a page that I belong to wanting to reopen Washington. I have to say, the first page that I joined had so much trash talking I had to drop out.

Another page cropped up to reopen Washington that I still belong to. They screen all subject matter and it seems to be more civil than the previous one.

I'm not crazy about the governor of Washington State, but I don't like to see some of the disparaging remarks that some people make online.

I don't know how well they were moderating that page in Michigan. I know the first page that I belong seemed to be a free-for-all, with lots of insults of anybody who even had a moderate point of view, such as me. For instance, I find the insult libtard unacceptable.

One facebook page was removed by it's creator. I don't know if this is the one you saw.

Call for violence against Michigan Democrats and Muslims in vile facebook page

... Metro Times identified dozens of recent posts promoting or threatening violence, primarily against Whitmer, U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Elissa Slotkin, American Muslims, and Dearborn. Hundreds of comments were posted each day, and many included vulgar insults against women, Muslims, Democrats, and LGTBQ+ communities...

... The creator of the page, Charlie Gillett, admits the “group has spun out of control” and told Metro Times he shut down the page to avoid repercussions at his job as a machine tool electrician in Sterling Heights. (He’s listed publicly as the administrator and creator of the page on facebook.)...

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2020/01/10/triggered-trumpers-call-for-violence-against-michigan-democrats-and-muslims-in-vile-facebook-page

2 Votes
1 hour ago, Wuzzie said:

Amusing but a bit polarizing. So far this has been a pretty good discussion. I'd like to keep it going but it won't if people start sniping at each other.

You seem to be the "sniper in charge" as well as the "credibility police" on this thread....so why don't you enlighten us all with your vast knowledge on the virulence of Covid-19. It IS a narrative, and I'm sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

0 Votes
Specializes in ER.
4 minutes ago, herring_RN said:

One facebook page was removed by it's creator. I don't know if this is the one you saw.

Call for violence against Michigan Democrats and Muslims in vile facebook page

... Metro Times identified dozens of recent posts promoting or threatening violence, primarily against Whitmer, U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Elissa Slotkin, American Muslims, and Dearborn. Hundreds of comments were posted each day, and many included vulgar insults against women, Muslims, Democrats, and LGTBQ+ communities...

... The creator of the page, Charlie Gillett, admits the “group has spun out of control” and told Metro Times he shut down the page to avoid repercussions at his job as a machine tool electrician in Sterling Heights. (He’s listed publicly as the administrator and creator of the page on facebook.)...

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2020/01/10/triggered-trumpers-call-for-violence-against-michigan-democrats-and-muslims-in-vile-facebook-page

I'm not surprised after what I saw on the page that I had joined. I didn't see anything that extreme, but it was too unpleasant for me to put up with.

There were some pretty vile insults.

2 Votes
7 minutes ago, GamerNurseRN said:

You seem to be the "sniper in charge" as well as the "credibility police" on this thread....so why don't you enlighten us all with your vast knowledge on the virulence of Covid-19. It IS a narrative, and I'm sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well, considering that infectious disease happens to be my area of specialty I believe that I do carry a little credibility. I have no problem with people expressing their opinions if they are willing to hear others' and aren't afraid to be disagreed with. Your statement implied that the only people presenting false information are the ones that don't agree with your agenda. How exactly does that support a narrative?

And I don't recall being snotty to anyone on this thread. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

4 Votes
34 minutes ago, Wuzzie said:

Well, considering that infectious disease happens to be my area of specialty I believe that I do carry a little credibility. I have no problem with people expressing their opinions if they are willing to hear others' and aren't afraid to be disagreed with. Your statement implied that the only people presenting false information are the ones that don't agree with your agenda. How exactly does that support a narrative?

And I don't recall being snotty to anyone on this thread. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

Happens to be mine as well, yet basic immunology and epidemiology has flown to the wayside because we have an "Orange Dude" POTUS. I'm also referring to those 2 "silenced" ER docs in Cali who are actually spot on about the herd and the ridiculousness of quarantining EVERYONE. I'm also referring to Dr. Ioannidis at Stanford (who has 3 times the resume as Fauci and hasn't been a 36 year beaurocrat) who also concurs.....yet we never hear from them.....because they get censored. The point I'm trying to make is science isn't science unless Fauci approves....and I reject that wholeheartedly. We are to follow the science, yet when the science blows up models, then we are to ignore the science. It's not me censoring anyone or anyone else's views. Like I said, we can agree to disagree. I respect your input. The longer this goes on, the better chance we have of becoming Venezuela.

0 Votes
26 minutes ago, GamerNurseRN said:

I'm also referring to those 2 "silenced" ER docs in Cali who are actually spot on about the herd and the ridiculousness of quarantining EVERYONE.

Their numbers were totally debunked by several epidemiologists. Also did you notice one of them stating he is being forced to sign COVID on death certificates which is highly unlikely since he works in an urgent care? Those kind of things go to the credibility of the person and it doesn't look too good for them. While I don't disagree that their area likely did not need a prolonged shut down they went too far when they applied their "statistics" (I use that term loosely) to the rest of the US. You simply can't compare Bakersfield California and NYC. I think the shut down was needed initially until we had more information but also agree that we cannot keep this going but that isn't what is being discussed here, that's another thread. We are discussing conspiracy theories and social media. Have you seen the new one where some dude is claiming that the COVID swab test is actually a secret vaccination? That is the stuff we are talking about here. Should that be allowed to percolate and do social media sites have the right to draw the line?

It sounds like we are more in agreement than you think. My beef was your implication that the only misinformation is coming from people who are reluctant to open. They are not all wackadoos. The ID brain trust at my large university institution collectively think the mortality rate for this is going to end up around 0.3-0.5% (much more than the flu) and a vaccine is realistically 4 years away. So they are understandably apprehensive about opening things up, especially because herd immunity without one is a big question mark at this time. There is nothing wrong with being cautious.

BTW, I am excluding the Cheeto in Chief in this discussion because I have a brain and thinking about him makes it hurt.

4 Votes
Specializes in Travel, Home Health, Med-Surg.
1 hour ago, Daisy Joyce said:

(somebody upthread asked if social media platforms have an obligation to publish untruths)


What is “truth”? How does it differ from “fact”? What happens when a lot of people know *some* but not *all* facts concerning a particular issue?

What part does philosophy play in all this? Are mere facts enough, ie bits of data? Or do we need to sift through the facts available, to analyze, to prioritize?

What happens when people look at the available facts, but come to different conclusions? What about facts that are obtained by unethical means?

This is the problem I see also. I agree that not everything should be allowed on any media (TV, radio, or social) but the problem is who is deciding what stays and what goes. The "facts" are sometimes highly skewed either intentionally or not, so in a sense the "facts" are always changing. Add to that the fact that the science can, and does, change and sometimes rapidly. So, should social media ban certain posts, I think so in obvious situations but there is the rub, who is deciding and what is their basis for deciding. Seems to be somewhat wishy washy and bias for the most part, IMO.

2 Votes
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, GamerNurseRN said:

Happens to be mine as well, yet basic immunology and epidemiology has flown to the wayside because we have an "Orange Dude" POTUS. I'm also referring to those 2 "silenced" ER docs in Cali who are actually spot on about the herd and the ridiculousness of quarantining EVERYONE. I'm also referring to Dr. Ioannidis at Stanford (who has 3 times the resume as Fauci and hasn't been a 36 year beaurocrat) who also concurs.....yet we never hear from them.....because they get censored. The point I'm trying to make is science isn't science unless Fauci approves....and I reject that wholeheartedly. We are to follow the science, yet when the science blows up models, then we are to ignore the science. It's not me censoring anyone or anyone else's views. Like I said, we can agree to disagree. I respect your input. The longer this goes on, the better chance we have of becoming Venezuela.

Who has made this bolded claim or assertion? Scrutinizing claims which are counter to the opinions of the experts who have been placed in positions to lead us is normal and expected behavior. As Dr Fauci clarified in his testimony, he isn't making any recommendations on the economy, he is making recommendations to address the public health crisis that is killing Americans in breathtaking numbers.

2 Votes
+ Add a Comment