Misinformation on Reddit has become profitable, so the people who could manage it don't want to.
FTFY
Seriously, just look at the bullshit response the admins gave to all the calls to ban antivax propaganda.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2021
32 points (92.1% liked)
Technology
34830 readers
16 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
And despite all that, Reddit's revenue is negligible compared to other social media gaints.
That's also why a lot of the "reddit blackout protests" literally don't do anything. Moderators think that by shutting down their sub to hurt the ad revenue of Reddit, but that's really NEVER been effective.
I'm glad this isn't a thing on the subreddit I moderate..
be sure to use masstagger to make sure there really isn't any misinformation, right-wingers can be surprisingly sneaky
You really cant determine if something is misinformation simply by looking who posted it. Right-wingers also get things right sometimes, just like left-wingers arent always correct.
Masstagger really needs an update. IIRC, they did not update the list of right-wing subreddits.
yeah, a update that accounts for off-shore websites would also be welcome
That would be almost impossible to do I think but yeah a lot of new right wing subreddits or their allies aren't tagged, the list hasn't been updated for a long time.
lol I'm tagged as a /r/conspiracy user. Shouldn't have argued against some nutjobs over there, I feel dirty now.
Facebook have the same issue to be honest. Misinformation is ripe on all social medias. But there is a fine line between censoring misinformation and censoring a certain facet of information, because who is to say what misinformation is?
An example is the censorship of ivermectin. There are a number of studies which show that ivermectin COULD be good against covid-19, yet its being labelled as misinformation. Here is an example of one such study which is a randomized double blind placebo controlled which uses invermectin with doxycycline. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03000605211013550 and concluded that "Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14."
But there does need to be more studies into ivermectin to reach a definitive conclusion on if it is actually effective against covid-19.
ffs... https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678
Please, have a listen to https://bodyofevidence.ca/interview-jack-lawrence-and-gid-m-k-on-ivermectin
Simply on the face of it, the notion that an anti-parasitic is useful against virii is not credulous. But hey, what does the body of evidence on it say so far?
Just get vaccinated. That's the medicine that's proven to help. If you catch COVID, you'd better hope you've been vaccinated.
A vaccine is completely different from a medicine. Even people who are vaccinated can get a severe infection, and then its good to have something that helps their treatment. Whether ivermectin is good for that or not I dont know, but I dont think we should automatically dismiss it because others took it too far.
Vaccination is not a full solution on its own. It is impossible to achieve 100% vaccination, so its good to have a treatment that helps those infected. Not to mention that vaccinated people can also get infected.
Right, the point of "just get vaccinated" is the first step that many that are seeking alternate medications for their possible infection are missing.
If we want to avoid misinformation, then perhaps all non-medical experts should stop discussing hearsay nonsense like Ivermectin as if our consensus on the topic would mean anything medically.
What medication should someone take when they get infected with COVID-19? The one their doctor or medical professional tells them to take. That's it.
The article you linked,
-
It doesn't mention or reference the Mehmud article.
-
It doesn't conclude that ivermectin is not useful against covid.
-
It uses the word infodemic.
Did you read it at all?
Overall, your comment does nothing at all to refute @redbook@lemmy.ml's one.
You completely missed the point and information presented. Sorry you can't grok it.
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678
This article basically says that the methodologies for the studies on ivermecitn are not sound. Ok but this doesn't prove that ivermectin is either good nor bad for treating covid-19 - just that there isn't reliable evidence for ivermectin treating covid-19. Hence why I said in the past post that ivermectin COULD be good against covid-19 and also why I said that there needs to be more research into ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 to reach a definitive conclusion on it.
The study that I cited is in my view the most reliable study there because its double blind randomized placebo controlled and uses a bigger sample size that most of the other studies with 363 completing follow up.
Granted I'm by no means a scientist, but why is there hardly any good studies on ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 and why is it that all the studies done on ivermectin don't use good methodologies? Please feel free to share some 'good' studies on ivermectin use for covid-19 because the website https://ivmmeta.com/ has all the studies for ivermectin usage for covid-19 (as far as I am aware) but even I will say that a lot of the studies done on ivermectin are unreliable because most of them use a very small sample size, but there are some that are good such as the one I mentioned above which as far as I am aware hasn't been 'debunked' anywhere.
Feel free to watch the following videos by Dr. John Cambell on youtube, the first video he notes that its quite weird that Australia are outright banning ivermectin and the second he looks at a meta analysis of ivermectin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gndsUjgPYo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7am9kjMrk
Please also note that I am not advocating for or against ivermectin. I'm simply saying that there needs to be more research into this drug because it could potentially be useful against covid-19 based on the studies that are already done on the drug, granted if we are to believe the bmj article you listed unreliable, but that's all that we can go on at the moment.
NO! This is the problem - WHY do you, or anyone, give a crap about Ivermectin? Because you've been manipulated in to thinking that it's a thing. Here's some other questions you could ask:
Where's the studies about chocolate chip cookies and their effect on COVID-19? Where's the studies about Vitamin-C and it's effect on COVID-19? Where's the studies about dog poop and it's effect on COVID-19?
They are all just as equally valid as your concern about Ivermectin - it's manufactured by misinformation trolls. And they all play exactly the same role in the treatment of COVID-19.
Vitamin C is part of the official NIH Covid-19 Guidelines.
You can't just say "Just get the vaccine" and stop there. That's the opposite of science. Anything that has any potential to help people should be studied. Especially in cases where the medicine is highly available and low cost for disadvantaged people around the world.
Also, lots of medications (including ivermectin) are addressed in the official guidelines.
I have zero interest in getting in an argument for what people should or shouldn't take. But to constantly refer to ivermectin as a "horse dewormer" is disinformation of a different kind. It's fear mongering. And it's harmful. It's a great drug for certain human conditions and to fear monger it could really have a negative effect on people who might actually need it for treatment.
When people were doing this with Hydroxychloroquine it made it very difficult to get. My mother legitimately needed it for her health treatment and because people kept using it as a political issue it made it very difficult.
So I think instead of vilifying people or medications that can be used to help people, just stick to the truth. There's no consensus. There's no harm in studying it. Talk to your Dr.
You can’t just say “Just get the vaccine” and stop there. That’s the opposite of science.
I can, actually... we're supposed to be talking about misinformation. We're not supposed to be talking about Ivermectin because there is no medical (sane) professional suggesting that it is to be used for the treatment of COVID in any way, shape or form at this time.
Nobody referred to Ivermectin in this discussion as a horse dewormer... but I understand your point. It does do a disservice to suggest that Ivermectin is only horse dewormer, but I don't think that's where all the yelling and screaming has come from in general. It is definitely the lowest common denominator to yell back at antivaxxers who believe they should buy and consume horse dewormer because they "d1D Th3ir ReSeaRCh!1!" That is an actual thing that's occurring, our local animal feed supply stores had to lock it up. Craziness.
Actual human Ivermectin is by prescription only here, I believe. Hopefully that and the fact that doctors aren't prescribing it for COVID will keep the supply available for those who require it.
I am absolutely all for sticking to the truth. Laymen spreading misinformation is absolutely what I'm against. There is certainly no harm in studying it, but the average Joe has no business trying to interpret those studies and spreading any part of it online. Like you say, talk to your doctor. 100%.
Nothing wrong with doing your own research, especially if know how to properly interpret research methods and results, as @redbook@lemmy.ml clearly does. But not everyone can do that.
I think your arger is justified. But these aren't the anti-vaxers you're looking for. They are advocating more and better research. They are not the guys treating people with unproven drugs.
Bahaha... No, @redbook is as qualified to do so as the next average Joe.
If you meant 'anger', it's not meant to be so... Misinformation spreading, which is still attempting to happen in spades in this thread, is very frustrating. There is absolutely tons to be learned in relation to this virus and medicine that can deal with it, it's an ongoing science experiment. But laymen seeking their own treatments on what medicines they'd like to take or not and pushing the nonsense end of it online as if their opinion matters in the world of medicine, is mostly unhelpful, and leads people down the roads of consuming horse dewormer, bleach, or hydroxychloroquine.
i could explain about what scientific method is, what makes a piece of research valid, how to judge the meaning and validity of a result. so you can filter out all the contradictory science and get to the truth. but doesn't sound like you'd be interested.
I'm taking about understanding a subject matter, not getting personal medical advice.
but you seem to be conscientiously anti science, or at least against certain types of science/research. this is really unusual, if it's true. what is the thinking there? what kind of background leads you to this ideological place?
If the scientists who have diplomas and PHDs put in a lot of time and effort to study ivermectin thought it was important enough then they must have had a reason to study its effects and the study that I mentioned seems to show that ivermectin in combination with doxycycline seems to have some benefit at treating covid-19. Maybe I'm missing something here... I'm open for discussion, but even you have to say that from all the studies that are done on ivermectin it seems to point to it being at least better than nothing for treating covid-19.
Is ivermectin really just a source of misinformation? You can see why an laymen that looks at the studies on ivermectin can conclude that ivermectin is effective against covid-19? And like I said why is it that there are not any 'good' studies on ivermectin to put the whole thing to sleep? Why is it that the good studies I could find on https://ivmmeta.com/ shows that ivermectin at least has some potential for treating covid-19?
This isn't me spreading misinformation, I'm just curious why the studies on ivermectin seem to point to it being at least better than nothing for treating covid-19? Ok yes they are perhaps unreliable, yet they still show that ivermectin shows some promise against covid-19?
And if you have extraordinary claims you are the one who needs to provide extraordinary evidence. So don't talk to us, just go prove it since it's so obvious that an entire planets worth of humans fail to see it
It's not so extrodinary. A new use can be found for a old drug. If anything it's ordinary.
And he did back it up with the research article. If you want to refute it, you should provide a higher quality of evidence, like a newer article. Otherwise you have nothing substantial to say.
Seriously, go listen to that podcast. The questions I would have for you are - are you qualified to interpret any study done on any of this stuff? Are you an epidemiologist? A virologist? An anything-ist with the qualifications for understanding what's garbage and what isn't?
Then why are you wasting your time with it?
No layman should be looking at the studies and then spreading any part of them on social media. Not qualified.
Now thats just anti-intellectualism. We shouldnt blindly believe what so-called experts on the media are telling us.
We shouldn't believe anyone blindly. But this does not mean that random comments on social networks have similar credibility with papers published on Nature by PhDs and tenured professors.
People have finite time and energy to research knowledge and focusing. Wasting everybody's time debunking falsehoods or reading unreliable sources or debating wacky theories is anti-intellectualism.
No one is suggesting that comments on social media are as credible as scientific papers. And nobody has to "waste time" debunking, its easy enough to ignore.
Essentially, it sounds like you want discussion of this topic to be banned.
No, you're right, we listen to our medical professionals, who have informed us (and the media) what needs to be done to be safe.
If you get COVID-19, you don't go to social media for some intellectualism. You go to the clinic, the doctor, the hospital, or whatever is provided by experts in your area.
I mention the podcast as it was a good one-off on the topic, by people who are qualified to discuss, on the topic of some of the 'key' Ivermectin 'studies' that are being referenced on social media that are making people do stupid shit like eat horse dewormer (first mention of this I've made to this point).
But my shoes COULD be good by that reasoning. It's really strange hanging on to weird stuff when we already know what works and have it. Why look for miracle cures in a horses ass?
Agreed, and I'm sorry that you are being downvoted. Social media and news media have a huge incentive to promote information that results in increased user interaction.
Ultimately no single organization or individual can be blindly regarded as arbiters of truth. We know this. When ideas can't be independently verified, thankfully, tools such as critical analysis and debate exist to tackle conundrums when they arise. It's a struggle.
Rules of the game unfortunately change when crises occur. Covid-19 is just one of countless instances. People who usually reason rationally become susceptible to flawed thinking in an effort to make sense of and resolve troubling things.
The pendulum truly does swing both ways; the blind, blanket categorizations of ideas contrary to the institutional truth is not helpful. The way to combat bad ideas is with good ideas, not with absentminded censorship.
For what it's worth coming from a stranger on the net, yes: the preponderance of studies on ivermectin are in favor-- indicating efficacy against the disease. The institutional scientific process itself is heavily flawed, this is a bitter truth. In time, truth yearns to come out, and truths have no motive or agenda, they simple are.
Man, it's like the court of public opinion is worth everything, and scientific consensus, none.
No, there's a pile of fraud involved in Ivermectin (amongst others) "studies", and there is no consensus at all that suggests that an anti-parasitic medicine has any effect on COVID whatsoever (what I presume you meant by "the disease"). If that's what you were trying to say, then you're part of the misinformation machine. Congrats.
There are many thousands of substances being tested as COVID treatments. There are dedicated forums to discuss research.
Trying to stir up conversations about a random substance in random forums creates a false impression of importance and legitimacy. This is an example of misinformation.
Can you name any such forums to discuss research?