Should Mumsnet be removing anti vax thread/info/supporters?

[wishingitwasspring]

Not sure what the legal stance is.

@Squleamish

If misinformation against the vaccines is removed, misinformation in favour of the vaccines should also be removed. There is plenty of both, but pro-vax is almost always allowed to stand. And who gets to decide? Twitter stamps "misleading" on BMJ/Lancet articles if they don't sing the vaccines' praises. It's fascinating.

Please give an example of pro-vaccine disinformation

@TheAnswerIsDontThinkAboutIt @XenoBitch Totally agree, all the recent posts about vaccines have been crazy, really strange that there’s such a huge influx at once, the comments were pretty disgusting, shouldn’t they be banned?

It’s putting a percentage on it and the irony of doing that on a thread about misinformation. Just say most or a fuck ton of experts and it would be less misleading. Also ‘all credible clinicians…..’ so clinicians have ‘credible’ status when they back up what you think, if a clinician or scientist disagrees then it’s because they are not credible, so their opinion is irrelevant.
I don’t know science but I know manipulation.

@Isthatthebestyoucando

It’s putting a percentage on it and the irony of doing that on a thread about misinformation. Just say most or a fuck ton of experts and it would be less misleading. Also ‘all credible clinicians…..’ so clinicians have ‘credible’ status when they back up what you think, if a clinician or scientist disagrees then it’s because they are not credible, so their opinion is irrelevant. I don’t know science but I know manipulation.

Consider me well and truly told off - never again will I use "99.9%" as a colloqualism for the "vast majority"

Nope - credible means their views are backed up by robust evidence, whatever those views may be.

I have yet to find an expert who does not recommend vaccination for the general population and who makes these claims based on good quality evidence. There's plenty of them who make these claims based on misinformation though.

I put it to you that it’s scientifically impossible that ‘99.99% of clinicians & scientists recommend vaccination for the general population. They don’t. Fact

Don't be silly.

But in colloquial speech, '100%' is often used to mean 'completely', and '99%' (or sometimes '99.99%') to mean 'almost'.

ell.stackexchange.com/questions/291720/is-100-correct-pronunciation-an-understandable-correct-and-proper-english-e

Of course pro-vaccine misinformation should also be removed if it is posted.

They should be removing misinformation and also hate speak. However if they did the latter they'd have barely any threads left.

@CherryRedDMs

Of course pro-vaccine misinformation should also be removed if it is posted.

I'm still waiting for an example of pro vaccine misinformation

As I am @CherryRedDMs!

Twitter removing Lancet/BMJ papers that did not "show vaccines in a favourable light" is what I'm particularly interested

As I said the only justification would be if they were retracted, but have seen many retracted papers endlessly cited & retweeted so would be suprised

Do you mean 'remove free speech / pro choice'??? '

Still waiting for the pro-vaccine misinformation. I think I will be waiting a while because all of it is backed by the scientific establishments of every country.

It’s easy to remove obvious misinformation or conspiracy theory nonsense. But since the idea of vaccines came about, the anti brigade have been more subtle than to post easily identified stuff.

There have been many, many faux innocent posts in a similar style “just questioning” , so they manage to evade deletion.

I have also seen a load of “my mental health”, “don’t bully me” “be kind” posts by anti-vaxxers spring up, so they sound like nice vulnerable people. DON’T BE FOOLED……

No. I think free speech is important but they should come with a warning that talking utter bollocks won't make you immortal.

The most faux innocent post is " Why should I get the vaccine when it does not stop transmission?" repeated ad nauseum. It reduces transission greatly.

Oh, yes, that one over and over again. Replacing the “my auntie’s friend had the vaccine and has turned into a duck-billed platypus” repeated in a hundred different ways.

@JanisMoplin

The most faux innocent post is " Why should I get the vaccine when it does not stop transmission?" repeated ad nauseum. It reduces transission greatly.

Yes I think "vaccines don't stop infection or transmission" is a good example of misinformation. It's not technically incorrect, which is why I guess difficult to delete, but a great example of taking something out of context and misinterpreted it, in order to discourage vaccination.

Similar to "there are 1000+ deaths on the coronavirus yellow card scheme"

So many of these types of posts, impossible to control it really.

According to the MNHQer who replied to one of my Reports about anti-vaxx misinformation, they (MNHQ) are not epidemiologists and would like posters to refute misinformation on the threads. So basically, do their job for them.

@Saucery

According to the MNHQer who replied to one of my Reports about anti-vaxx misinformation, they (MNHQ) are not epidemiologists and would like posters to refute misinformation on the threads. So basically, do their job for them.

The trouble is there's a huge amount of posters who do, who seem to be very well qualified, but it isn't their job & understandably their posts are getting less and less.

Also the fact that the misinformation is repeated so you're just typing out the same things again - and you told off by posters for being repetitive & boring

The trouble is there's a huge amount of posters who do, who seem to be very well qualified, but it isn't their job & understandably their posts are getting less and less.

I know and I give much more weight to their comments than people who don’t back up their’s with reputable research. I appreciate those posters very much, but I don’t think the onus should be on any posters to keep having to counteract unqualified nonsense about masks not giving you enough oxygen (they do) and the like.

I am not an epidemiologist. I don't have a science degree. I know how to listen to the scientific consensus though.

On the internet, we could all be Fauci. Why it is more important to listen to the JCVI.

I’ve reported total bollocks misinformation before and it was quickly removed

I’ve threatened on another thread to report “be kind” posts. A large number follow the line, “I’m really worried about being vaccinated as I know so many people who’ve been left infertile/it doesn’t stop the spread/I have a needle phobia and anxiety - please don’t bully me and be kind!”

Yup @Saucery

they (MNHQ) are not epidemiologists and would like posters to refute misinformation on the threads. So basically, do their job for them.

There is an actually tsnami of misinformation on MN. The board is swimming with it. Even if one person was doing it full time, it's not possible to engage with all of it (and the format of MN makes it much harder than somewhere like reddit or twitter).

Added to the fact that you posters repeating the same misinformation time after time on threads, not giving a shiny shite that they've been corrected multiple times the past.

Then when you reply for the umpteenth time with the same info you get told you're "boring", "repetitive", accused of stalking, or my personal fave "either a big pharma CEO or an idiot" and the personal attacks start.

It makes it impossible to engage with important things on the board (i.e., government policies, vaccines mandates, safety concerns, vaccination of various groups) because every thread turns into just this pit of nonsense.