extranjero (![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} extranjero) rakstīja, |
Man nepatīk tviteris, bet šeit ir vēl izvērstāk par nelīdzsvaroto diskursu:
https://twitter.com/Aelkus/status/12619
Galvenie punkti:
- It's not really clear that there was some "eureka" moment when data suggested anything new. Rather, individual and expert opinion changed because in a fast-moving crisis today's conventional wisdom can become tomorrow's wrongthink.
- There is mass shaming of people who deviate from guidelines that, relatively recently, were mocked as excessive
- this "blew up" as they say, but one thing for those in replies that say "well, the facts changed": they really didn't
- I'm pretty clearly happy that opinions shifted. Because what was being done prior to this was, on multiple levels, malpractice.
- But my point ultimately is that being aggressively in favor of masks early in this crisis was a minority viewpoint, one that defied not only the Surgeon General but also international health authorities.
- Platform policies that are increasingly put in place now are predicated on the assumption that going against established medical authorities is bad. Maybe even a bannable offense.
- Ideally I'd like people to learn a lot of things from this episode but one of them is simply the danger of enforcing social punishments on people in a situation with a lot of ambiguity, and more importantly a situation where consensus doesn't update in some kind of idealized Bayesian fashion. This is especially true when it comes to how we devise policies about misinformation and how much platforms ought to instrumentalize viewpoints of public authorities.
https://twitter.com/Aelkus/status/12619
Galvenie punkti:
- It's not really clear that there was some "eureka" moment when data suggested anything new. Rather, individual and expert opinion changed because in a fast-moving crisis today's conventional wisdom can become tomorrow's wrongthink.
- There is mass shaming of people who deviate from guidelines that, relatively recently, were mocked as excessive
- this "blew up" as they say, but one thing for those in replies that say "well, the facts changed": they really didn't
- I'm pretty clearly happy that opinions shifted. Because what was being done prior to this was, on multiple levels, malpractice.
- But my point ultimately is that being aggressively in favor of masks early in this crisis was a minority viewpoint, one that defied not only the Surgeon General but also international health authorities.
- Platform policies that are increasingly put in place now are predicated on the assumption that going against established medical authorities is bad. Maybe even a bannable offense.
- Ideally I'd like people to learn a lot of things from this episode but one of them is simply the danger of enforcing social punishments on people in a situation with a lot of ambiguity, and more importantly a situation where consensus doesn't update in some kind of idealized Bayesian fashion. This is especially true when it comes to how we devise policies about misinformation and how much platforms ought to instrumentalize viewpoints of public authorities.
Nopūsties:
