Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine United States

The Surgeon General Calls on Big Tech To Turn Over Covid-19 Misinformation Data (nytimes.com) 90

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
President Biden's surgeon general formally requested that the major tech platforms submit information about the scale of Covid-19 misinformation on social networks, search engines, crowdsourced platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems. From a report: A request for information from the surgeon general's office demanded that tech platforms send data and analysis on the prevalence of Covid-19 misinformation on their sites, starting with common examples of vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The notice asks the companies to submit "exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of Covid-19 misinformation," as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to or affected by the misinformation. The surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, also demanded information from the platforms about the major sources of Covid-19 misinformation, including those that engaged in the sale of unproven Covid-19 products, services and treatments.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Surgeon General Calls on Big Tech To Turn Over Covid-19 Misinformation Data More

The Surgeon General Calls on Big Tech To Turn Over Covid-19 Misinformation Data

Comments Filter:

  • The notice asks the companies to submit "exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of Covid-19 misinformation," as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to or affected by the misinformation.

    Just how many people were exposed to blatant misinformation like "Jacob Blake was unarmed" or "Hands Up Don't Shoot" or "Bubba Wallace was the target of a hate crime" or dozens of other false BLM narratives?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quall ( 1441799 )

      I'd mod you up if I could.

      It seems that nobody cares about "misinformation" unless it comes from the right. Never-mind all the riots and looting that occurred over it. Those are OK for whatever reason.

    • Thank you for your thoroughly unrelated whataboutism input. While you are at it, feel free to add "Republican poll watchers weren't allowed in Philadelphia" [lifesitenews.com] and "Donald Trump didn't send Rudy Giuliani to the Ukraine". [billoreilly.com]

      By the way, for being oppressed and silenced viewpoints, there sure are a ton of places to find this kind of bullshit.

  • âPolitical language â" and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists â" is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.â(TM)

  • the cdc makes for an incompetent ministry of truth

  • I assume that's why it says "request". Probably with the thinly veiled threat that if they don't it will reflect poorly in the ongoing congressional antitrust investigations... I would otherwise expect this to be fought in court for an undue burden.

    Also, wouldn't the current section 230 that says they're not responsible for shit posted also mean they're not responsible for who reads it? IANAL, just seems like a strange thing to ask, particularly in public.

    • Yes, it's merely a request. All you lazy bastards who are chattering about the precise language without looking at the document in question can just see it here [federalregister.gov].

      As for 47 USC 230, it's probably superfluous in this instance. All it does is say that online sites aren't publishers of third-party information. Suppose the same misinformation were printed by a traditional publisher in a format that the CDA absolutely doesn't apply to. What liability would there be then based on who reads the information?

      The o

      • This is exactly the type of thing government should not be looking at. "Misinformation" is the excuse of all sorts of attempts of the current administration (and Progressives) to control speech (not just covid) which it finds politically inconvenient. The implication here is that politicians want to add leverage to squelch what people see and hear "in the name of public good".

        The correct way to fight actual disinformation is by putting out real information. Trusting the populace to be able to figure it o

        • Baldercrap!

          The request is meant to understand what happened and how to avoid it happening in the future. There's no implication regarding controlling speech, and no plausible mechanism for doing so -- you're just jumping to conclusions and presenting your assumptions as facts which is ironic as all hell in a discussion about misinformation.

          In fact, the request is purely for information about what happened. There's nothing in it about what to do about it yet. This is just about gaining an understanding. Y

      • Yes, it's merely a request. All you lazy bastards who are chattering about the precise language without looking at the document in question can just see it here [federalregister.gov].

        Lazy bastards like ... the NYT?

        The surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, also demanded information from the platforms about {...}

  • The CDC should also look to determine the root causes of the misinformation. The CDC changing the definition of what a vaccine is for one didn't help matters.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20200317214611/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm VS. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gflash ( 6321000 )

      The CDC should also look to determine the root causes of the misinformation. The CDC changing the definition of what a vaccine is for one didn't help matters.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20200317214611/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm VS. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/v... [cdc.gov]

      This isn't a conspiracy. The second definition is a better one. You know that the flu vaccine never provided anywhere close to 100% immunity either don't you?

      • There are vaccines that to make you immune though. When was the last time anyone worried about smallpox? The vaccine was actually very effective. Polio, measles, etc, are still around and we don't worry about getting those. Why can't we just admit that as far as vaccines go, these are crappy ones. The multi protein one the military developed will likely be vastly better. Vaccinating against one protein and expected it's efficacy to last is about as stupid as treating MRSA with a single antibiotic and expect

        • When was the last time anyone worried about smallpox? .

          The 1950's, and those vaccines were also only around 90-95% effective but with smallpox we had a global campaign to vaccinate every human on earth essentially. Also while smallpox is much deadlier than covid it also is not nearly as infectious as delta or omicron covid. Measles comes close but also measles and those other diseases has been standard protocol for children for 5 decades now, we look at the results of today and expect those kind of results in a couple years? It's not a fair comparison at all.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jbengt ( 874751 )

          There are vaccines that to make you immune though. When was the last time anyone worried about smallpox? The vaccine was actually very effective. Polio, measles, etc, are still around and we don't worry about getting those.

          None of those vaccines provide full immunity and certainly not permanent immunity. For example, they don't give out smallpox vaccines anymore because there is no animal reservoir of it and so it is considered eradicated. But CDC says if you work with the virus you should get vaccinated

      • This isn't a conspiracy. The second definition is a better one. You know that the flu vaccine never provided anywhere close to 100% immunity either don't you?

        I think there is a CDC conspiracy to confuse people with worthless information that begins with the CDC.

        "Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."

        The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is intentionally designed to generate an implicit false assumption Immunity means Invincibility / not getting sick.

        This theme carried on throughout much of the post vaccine pandemic with media constantly waving meaningless efficacy

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by gflash ( 6321000 )

          This isn't a conspiracy. The second definition is a better one. You know that the flu vaccine never provided anywhere close to 100% immunity either don't you?

          I think there is a CDC conspiracy to confuse people with worthless information that begins with the CDC.

          "Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."

          The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is intentionally designed to generate an implicit false assumption Immunity means Invincibility / not getting sick.

          I am not seeing the problem here. The general definition of immunity is that if you are "immune" you won't get sick. Vaccines provide protection but don't guarantee immunity. This was a good clarification. Not seeing the problem.

          This theme carried on throughout much of the post vaccine pandemic with media constantly waving meaningless efficacy numbers based on studies over time horizons of no usable import. Unsurprisingly figures were routinely smashed to bits during Delta and Omicron and as more realistic longer term data became available.

          It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why so many people now use phrases like "Vaccines don't work" .. it's because over the entire year they were being essentially lied to by public health officials peddling meaningless metrics.

          Now belatedly ya'll expect them to understand the slight of hand baked into the CDC definition that really immunity means everyone is getting it and immunity just protects you from getting really sick.

          If anyone had wanted covid misinformation all they had to do was turn on the TV. Public health officials routinely offering contradictory and arbitrary advice prefixed with "science says". Completely discounting personal health. Constantly confusing policy with science.

          The Fauci in his May 22 2019 Rubeinstein interview was nothing like the Fauci we actually got during the pandemic.

          If the current surgeon general is at all confused about sources of misinformation he should ask his predecessor.

          We were learning as we go. They did provide strong immunity in the beginning. However, the facts changed as the pandemic progressed. We didn't know at the start that protection would fade the way it did. Omicron also dramatically reduced the effectiveness of vaccine against infectio

  • Um (Score:3)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Friday March 04, 2022 @12:22PM (#62326265) Journal

    The surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, also demanded information from the platforms about the major sources of Covid-19 misinformation, including those that engaged in the sale of unproven Covid-19 products, services and treatments.

    Er, wait, which is it. "Requested"? "Asked"? "Demanded"?

    If "demanded", then under what statutory authority, my old Eurocentric guy logic wonders?

  • Wow, looks like this story's kicked off an extremist orgy of ignorance here on /. Never fails.

    • Yeah, the CDC cheer-leading is kind of tiresome isn't it?

      • Are you saying the people who work at the CDC are extremists?

        BTW, everyone knows that Fauci is the most competent & well-intentioned medical & epidemiological expert in the public sphere today. Despite the former administration & many others trying to undermine him, he's more than likely saved thousands, if not 10's thousands of lives in the USA alone. How do you feel about that?

    • Not exactly shocking. This place seems filled to the brim with anti-logic talking points lately. They've probably been frothing at the mouth in anticipation of any story they could feel safe shit-posting in again. The Ukraine aimed stories gotta be rough of people that need all their talking points to be vetted by the Qanon / right-wing crowd for them.

      • Your US capitalism and war machine, unDemocratic Party bias is showing.. Your dumb rhetoric is unhelpful, but it feels good to you doesn't it? Why do you thiink this base Democratic Party rhetoric makes you feel good? I'm not Republican for the record. I just know that the covid19 has been an unnecessary forced vaccination for 95% of people. Do you know the commorbidities that actually put people at risk? Do you know the survival rate and how it is calculated? Have you taken a methods of inquiry class and

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by cwatts ( 622605 )

        russian trolls. they know exactly what they are doing.

  • It honestly doesn't matter, since people are going to believe whatever fits their preconceived notions, and nothing is going to change their minds.

    They want to to think that they're smarter than they actually are, and that they have more power and influence than they actually do.

  • "You can't pass the virus on if you get the vaccine" , hospitalized with covid19, instead of because of covid19; which also means dying with covid19 instead of covid19. Another lie by purposeful omission - the 4 main risk factors are the comorbidities of high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, heart disease were well known since early 2020 but the CDC did not publicly state that, and not even correctly until January 2021. https://www.blacklistednews.co... [blacklistednews.com] Profiteering financially and politically has be

  • Dissent must be rooted out at all costs. Putin? Nope, US govt.

  • The government has supplied plenty of misinformation about covid19. They don't really care about misinformation unless it disagrees with the misinformation they have published.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. - W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876

Close