"Opinion: Banning vaccine-hesitant posts is not the way to ease people’s fears": https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7f279c-85c7-11eb-82bc-e58213caa38e_story.html Opinion: Banning vaccine-hesitant posts is not the way to ease people’s fears A 3-D plastic representation of the Facebook logo is seen in this illustration in Bosnia. (Dado Ruvic/Reuters) Opinion by Editorial Board March 16, 2021 at 6:14 p.m. EDT FACEBOOK STARTED removing misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic early last year — sifting through a slew of claims to adjudicate which could result in physical danger and which would result merely in delusion. This, it turns out, was the easy part. The Post’s Elizabeth Dwoskin reports on a study by Facebook to identify Americans’ attitudes toward vaccinations, dividing the population into segments to assess what groups hold what beliefs. The upshot: Fully 50 percent of all content classified as “vaccine hesitancy” was shared within just 10 of those 638 segments and in those echo chambers, the content has particular potential to cause harm. The answer might seem clear: Remove or down-rank content designed to discourage inoculation. But it isn’t that simple. The posts covered by Facebook’s research exist in the gray area between outright falsehoods banned by the platform and the types of doubts and concerns that aren’t strictly inaccurate, but do foster people’s fears. Some of these may be distortionary and exploitative, spread by repeat offenders eager to sow discord. Others, however, may be earnest expressions of skepticism based in reality: worries, for example, that a vaccine produced in record time carries unusual risk, even though the science hasn’t shown any serious side effects thus far. Facebook could focus on rooting out coordinated influence campaigns, but sweeping takedowns or down-rankings of all borderline content could foster more misgiving, and deprive people of the opportunity to discuss and learn. The better answer is to use the hesitant posts to understand where they’re coming from and why. Some groups, including those with links to the QAnon conspiracy theory, may be reflexively wary of authority. Many communities of color have historically fraught relationships with the medical establishment. Facebook is already sharing data from its symptoms survey collected by academic partners to help regions with their rollouts. The project should continue and expand so that public health authorities can address the right problems in the right places. Facebook should be addressing those problems too, with something more meaningful than the typical tools of removals and algorithmic tweaks. Different concerns require different responses, and those responses should also come from different people — sources credible to the populations they’re trying to reach, providing tailored interventions with more nuance than an all-purpose label containing information from the World Health Organization. Facebook can further partner with experts and civil society groups to enter echo chambers and interrupt the noise with information that is not only trustworthy but also likely to be trusted. The close link between online life and the offline world causes this problem; the same link could also help solve it.
First, I don't know of a single feminist that doesn't support LGBTGQ. Second, the "issue" is when someone that is transgender tries to claim that their struggle and experiences are the same as those born with a vagina. There are a lot of feminists that believe that those in the transgender community have their own struggles (in some cases even more severe) but they do not have the SAME struggles. This upsets some in the LGBTQ community and not being inclusive, and many feminists have responded with some version of "You did not grow up viewed as female and did not have the same struggles as being a female. You have different struggles."
Wow. First off, it looks similar to Texas' abortion bill, giving private citizens grounds to sue teachers (there is even language in there forbidding the teacher from allowing some other entity to pay his costs) instead of the state trying to directly regulate their speech. Second, this is a completely insane bill. Maybe there is a definition somewhere in OK law for "closely held religious belief" but the text of the bill doesn't reference one. Without some pretty tight definition, I would think Christians, Muslims, humanists, satanists, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and more could all sue from every side. Not just evolution. Teachers could be sued for teaching creationism. Or the scientific method. The amount of trolling in the courts that the bill would make possible is ridiculous. Public schools would not function, period. And maybe that's the point - a poison pill to kill public education. I'm going to guess this bill dies a quiet death. But, such stupid irresponsible legislating to introduce it in the first place.
the majority of the things people cry about I’m like “there’s no way u actually care about this inconsequential thing this much in real life”…bunch of fake outrage for internet clout dudes typing in all caps screaming to cancel something while taking their morning dump before they scroll through Instagram
