Fighting wave of misinfo, YouTube bans false vaccine claims

 YouTube is wiping vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories from its popular video-sharing platform.

The ban on vaccine misinformation, announced in a blog post on Wednesday, comes as countries around the world continue to offer free immunizations for COVID-19 to a somewhat hesitant public. Public health officials have struggled to push back against a steady current of online misinformation about the COVID-19 shot since development of the immunization first got underway last year.

YouTube’s new rules will prohibit misinformation about any vaccine that has been approved by health authorities such as the World Health Organization and are currently being administered. The platform had already begun to crack down late last year on false claims about the COVID-19 vaccine.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, will delete videos that falsely claim vaccines are dangerous or cause health issues, like cancer, infertility or autism — a theory that scientists have discredited for decades but has endured on the internet. As of Wednesday, popular anti-vaccine accounts, including those run by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., were kicked off YouTube.

“We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we’re now at a point where it’s more important than ever to expand the work we started with COVID-19 to other vaccines,” YouTube said in a prepared statement.

The new rule will apply to general claims about vaccines as well as statements about specific vaccines, such as those given for measles or flu.

Claims about vaccines that are being tested will still be allowed. Personal stories about reactions to the vaccine will also be permitted, as long as they do not come from an account that has a history of promoting vaccine misinformation. ___

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-technology-business-misinformation-public-health-d68aa3f6f6bc44e36c77c33cff4a450a

What took YouTube so long? OR will this be seen as censorship of opposing views? 

Is the label “fascist Republican Party” unduly unfair, inaccurate and/or offensive?

American fascists, Kansas City, MO, 2013

Context

Several people here have pointed out that not all Republicans are fascist, which in my opinion is probably true in some sense. That said, I put a lot of thought into the label before starting to use the FRP (fascist Republican Party) label after the 1/6 coup attempt. I understand that what we have now is not identical to fascism under Mussolini. But I believe the similarities are sufficient to warrant the label. And, what the FRP wants to do to this country is not done yet. If that party gets its way, I believe that the differences between Mussolini and what we are now would significantly narrow further. The overt, ongoing Republican Party attack on democracy, elections, the rule of law, civil liberties, inconvenient facts and inconvenient truths is not over yet. Its not close, at least among the elites and power players that dominate the FRP.

Has corporate power merged with the American state?

What is the modern FRP?

In my opinion, the FRP consists of two main different groups that dominate the party, the elites and the rank and file (R&F). The elites consist of radical ideologues, prominently radical fundamentalist Christian nationalists and radical wealthy laissez faire capitalists and special interests. One main goal of the elites is to install fascism in the name of trickling wealth and power up to the top few. The other man goal is to impose dark ages Christian morality and biblical law, basically Christian sharia, on what they see and/or claim is a nation deeply corrupted by horrors such as secularism, social tolerance, ferocious persecution of innocent Christians, racial impurity and sexual abomination. That group clearly is, among some other bad things, anti-democratic, anti-inconvenient truth (deeply mendacious), and fascist. This group utterly dominates the FRP and its divisive, polarizing rhetoric, policies and behaviors.

By contrast, the R&F are a different kettle of fish. Probably at least about 50% are strongly authoritarian or fascist and thus strongly aligned with the elites. Those are the White supremacists, racists, Nazis, capitalist autocrats, etc. The other ~50% see themselves as patriots desperately fighting to defend threatened democracy, truth and other democratic ideals. Most of this portion of the R&F firmly believe the lies and bullshit the elites have convinced them to believe after decades of ruthless radical right propaganda. Some of this portion of the R&F are supportive of violence to defend democracy, with some of those willing to participate in a violent defense with bloodshed.

The lies and bullshit The R&F has been deceived into believing are exemplified by slandering both Democrats and the Democratic Party like this description by one disgruntled conservative observer: 

Trump has returned to the explosive rhetoric of that day [1/6], insisting that he won in a “landslide,” that the “radical left Democrat communist party” stole the presidency in the “most corrupt, dishonest, and unfair election in the history of our country” and that they have to give it back. .... Looking ahead to 2022 and 2024, Trump insists “there is no way they win elections without cheating. There’s no way.” So, if the results come in showing another Democratic victory, Trump’s supporters will know what to do. Just as “generations of patriots” gave “their sweat, their blood and even their very lives” to build America, Trump tells them, so today “we have no choice. We have to fight” to restore “our American birthright.”

That is a direct call for civil war backed by gunfire. It is not an invitation to the opposition to come in for a coffee and donuts chat to compromise and settle differences amicably.  Although it is an authoritarian call for violent overthrow of democracy, most of the R&F see it as a call to defend threatened democracy, and defend it by violence if needed.

In addition to being falsely labeled as radical left communists, some of the R&F believe that the Democratic Party and rank and file Democrats are, among other awful things, 

    (i) cannibalistic pedophiles; 

    (ii) conducting a massive deep state conspiracy to install some form of fascism or other form of tyranny on the American people; 

    (iii) planning to confiscate all guns and then enslave most everyone; 

    (iv) planning to make Christianity illegal and apply force to convert everyone to atheism; 

    (v) planning to rig all future elections so that Republicans cannot win elections any more, because “there is no way they win elections without cheating.”; and/or

    (vi) planning to replace White people in power and White people’s rights with non-White immigrants who will (a) invariably vote for Democrats, and (b) enjoy rights superior to the rights of White people.  

That is mainstream FRP propaganda and talking points. Tens of millions of the FRP R&F believe at least some of that deranged crackpottery and lies. Some or many independents also believe at least some of it. Heck, even some Democrats believed, probably still do, that the 2020 election was stolen. That kind of vicious FRP propaganda has been going on for decades. It has worked with most of the R&F.

Back to the FRP label

People will partly or completely accept or reject that description of the modern Republican Party. I believe it is accurate and not overstated or understated. Nearly all Republicans will reject most or all of it. Opinions of others will vary widely. 

But based on my perception of the Republican Party, that is why I use the label FRP for both the elites and the R&F. I resisted lumping the two groups before the 1/6 coup attempt, but not after that. After 1/6, there was no excuse to keep the elites separate from the R&F. Most people either saw 1/6 as pro-democracy or anti-democracy, despite FRP propaganda painting it as just innocent tourists taking selfies in the Capitol. 

So, despite most, (~90 ?) of the Republican R&F strongly believing, actually “knowing,” they are not fascists, their beliefs and behaviors directly support and sustain elite FRP American fascism. If the R&F walked away from the Republican Party and stopped voting for the politicians in power now, the cancer of Republican Party fascism would die. 

People sometimes do act based on false belief(s), thinking they support X and/or oppose Y, but in fact their actions do the opposite. That is what is happening here. The Republican elites and their well-funded propaganda Leviathan have finally managed to deceive, manipulate and betray most of the Republican R&F. 

Questions: 

1. Under current circumstances in the Republican Party, is it unfair, inaccurate and/or offensive to label the Party, its elites and/or the R&F fascist? If not fascist, what label would be better, authoritarian, radical, autocratic, plutocratic, Republican, something else?

2. Assuming one believes that most of the Republican R&F are deceived and not aware of what they actually support, does that mean they are not fascists? Or, does the Republican Party not actually support fascism, but is mostly or completely benign and pro-democracy?

3. Should members of the Republican R&F leave the party in protest, or stay while believing that they and/or the GOP are not fascist?  

Some racists are in the mix

The Supreme Court’s public credibility drops to new low: Litmus tests are involved

In a display of adult self-delusion and crackpot juvenile logic, some Supreme Court justices have been publicly asserting that they are not political because sometimes they make decisions they do not like. That reasoning is nonsense. One can be a highly political judge, like all six of the radical Christian nationalist (CN) Republicans on the bench now, but still sometimes constrained by the law. Rome was not built in a day, and neither will the Republican Party’s dream of American fascism. To build a durable fascism, American democratic rule of law needs to be corrupted and subverted over time into authoritarianism. That cannot be done in a single case or even a dozen cases. It will take several years, probably at least four, assuming a Republican wins the White House in 2024.

Recent polling indicates that ~60% of Americans now view the court with disapproval. Recent court decisions that fell in line with fascist Republican and radical CN ideology appear to have had a negative impact on public opinion. The Washington Post writes: 

In emergency decisions in August and September, the court ruled against two Biden administration initiatives, ending a nationwide eviction moratorium and reimposing an abandoned immigration policy. And in a bitter 5-to-4 split that sparked controversy and prompted congressional action, the court allowed to take effect a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, while legal challenges to it continue.

“I think these last few years have really been very dangerous and potentially devastating to the Supreme Court’s credibility because the public is seeing the court as increasingly political, and the public is right,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who served as a Supreme Court clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun. “The statements by Thomas, Barrett, Breyer, you know, give me a break . . . they are just inherently noncredible.”

As expected, the radical right propaganda Leviathan has been cranked up to chime in with its faux reality. Radical right propagandists and blowhards dismiss charges of radical right politics in the court as just liberal complaints about a Supreme Court doing great job. This is as partisan as just about everything else in contested American politics.

No one on the radical right and none of the judges mention the fact that Republican nominees have to pass a number of political litmus tests to even be considered for a judicial nomination. The political tests are what one would expect. For example, Republican nominees must show themselves to staunchly opposed to abortion, gun regulation, government regulation, taxes, secularism, secular education, climate change regulation, immigration, consumer protection, civil liberties, and staunchly in favor of corporate power, rich people power and trickle-up economics. 

By definition, fascist Republican judges are pre-packaged politicians with their credentials and ideological bona fides thoroughly vetted before they can be put on the radical right, CN Federal Society’s acceptable judge list. At least for the fascist Republicans in power, this is purely political and so are their judges.

What about the Dem’s litmus tests for judges?

In 2019, some Democratic politicians indicated that for them, support for abortion rights and the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision was their litmus test. The Hill wrote in an article entitled, 2020 Dems break political taboos by endorsing litmus tests:

Democratic presidential hopefuls are embracing a political tool long considered taboo: setting litmus tests for potential judicial nominees.

A torrent of legislation restricting abortion rights in several states has prompted a scramble among several candidates to set more explicit ideological and jurisprudential conditions for would-be judicial nominees.

Chief among those conditions: that any potential judicial nominee back the ruling in Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that established a woman’s right to an abortion. So far, a handful of candidates for the Democratic nomination, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have committed to appointing only justices that would uphold that decision.

Those pledges underscore the extent to which presidential candidates have become comfortable with shattering what has been considered largely off-limits in campaign politics. 

“There’s been a discomfort with crossing that line. I think what we’ve seen over the past three years is a breakdown in that discomfort,” Christopher Schmidt, a constitutional law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

It looks like that in response to the rigid litmus tests the FRP (fascist Republican Party) now require its judicial nominees to pass, the Democratic Party has started moving in the same direction, at least on the issue of abortion. 

A personal analysis: Not all litmus tests are the same -- authoritarian vs. democratic

Demagoguery: political rhetoric, activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument

In my opinion, there are two fundamentally opposed mindsets at war in America’s political and legal systems. One is mostly democratic, pluralistic, secular, and in favor of relatively more wealth and power distribution to the masses. For the most part but not completely, that’s the Democrats. The other mindset is mostly authoritarian, racially and socially intolerant (I see it as an American variant of fascism) and in favor relatively more wealth and power distribution to wealthy people and powerful special interests, usually at the expense of the masses and/or the environment. For the most part and with few exceptions, that’s the FRP. Decades of RINO hunts have mostly ideologically cleansed the FRP of mental diversity. 

Based on 2010 data

One other important mindset difference is grounded in principle and morality. The democratic mindset usually relies much more on facts and reasonably sound reasoning to make its arguments and appeals for support. For that mindset, the ends do not justify the means. Inherent in the democratic mindset is an openness to accepting social change in both law and policy. 

By contrast, the fascist mindset is demagogic and relies much more on lies, deceit, irrational emotional manipulation and partisan motivated reasoning. Here, the ends justify the means, e.g., lies, fomented irrational fear, hate,  bigotry, etc. Inherent in the fascist mindset is an openness to law and policy that the elites dictate, usually in reliance on laisses-faire capitalism and/or God as moral authority. In general, society gets what it wants only if the elites, speaking for their economic ideology and/or God also want it.  

Those opposed mindsets are at war in the courts. Hence the litmus tests. If one accepts that description of the two mindsets as basically accurate, and yes, the FRP vehemently disagrees, one can see litmus tests for judges as one of two different things, mostly democratic or mostly authoritarian. Thus a judicial litmus test in favor of defending something that most of the public wants, e.g., easy access to legal, safe abortions, is different than a litmus test hell-bent on getting rid of abortion rights regardless of what the public wants.

Questions: 

1. Are all litmus tests for judges equal, or is the democratic vs authoritarian distinction argued here real and meaningful?

2. FRP elites and its propagandist Leviathan (Faux News, Breitbart, the Federalist Society, etc.) now routinely refer to the Democratic Party as radical left and socialist tyrants, but is that true, with the FRP actually being the more authoritarian and radical of the two mindsets?

3. Which mindset is currently more powerful (i) in politics and law, and (ii) in society generally, as represented by, e.g., the distribution of wealth data shown above?

The Social Dynamics of Online Communication

 

I started a little channel on Disqus in 2016, and have participated in discussions on various platforms for over a decade now. It has become very common to criticize social dynamics online, whether discussed in terms of "trolling," cyber-bullying, the dimunition of "civility," the frequently observed obsession with being "liked" and "followed" as a source of self-esteem and validation, or other related issues that have received attention in social discourse. While the resulting literature is often thoughtful (Sherry Turkle's Alone Together and Jaron Lanier's manifesto,  I Am Not A Gadget,  https://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1MHHS4T68-C8ZML1-6DRW/YouAreNotAGadget-Jaron%20Lanier.pdf  come to mind), the problem that I'm concerned with here is more narrowly focused.  My focus here is on only one of the many problems mentioned above. To keep things simple, I'll  describe the problem in terms borrowed from  educational theorist, Alfie Kohn, in his book, No Conflict (1991). He coined a useful acronym to get at the basic issue, "MEGA."  MEGA stands for MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE GOAL ATTAINMENT, and the psychology underlying it has deep roots in theories of cooperation and conflict.

 

 

The underlying core-belief in MEGA is that when people discuss issues on which different and strong positions/viewpoints exist, it is generally the case that it can best be understood as a "conflict" or "debate" in which one party's gain entails the other's loss (as in a zero-sum-game). Like our adversarial legal system, it presupposes that there must be a "winner" and "loser" on any issue of importance. The binary of "win" and "lose" carries with it an attitude (ranging from subtle to overt) of basic enmity. This comes up again and again whether the  mutually exclusive categories are framed in terms of  political affiliation, musical taste, philosophical theories, religious beliefs, sports or even seemingly innocuous topics like TV shows and favorite celebrities.

 

 

Back in the aughts, I began to notice youtube philosophy vids (youtube was still new then) formatted as "point-counterpoint" debates. My academic background was largely in philosophy, and so I was, at first, intrigued. One person would post a thesis or argument,  and another person would publish a rejoinder in which he or she (usually he at the time, though this has changed) tries to "defeat" the other party. If Sam argues for, say, "free will," then the response by Bill will be the most forceful attempt to show that Sam's view is dead wrong in no uncertain terms. Such debates have a place in traditional philosophy, but they also have limits. Both parties may have insights, for example, and neither may have a full and adequate account of the complex concept of free will. So there's a potential loss in terms of learning from one another or engaging in cooperative inquiry. This can be generalized to most complex conceptual discussions. If my sole focus is on "winning" an argument (where that entails the other party "loses") then I will selectively attend to what I see as the "weak points" in the other's presentation, and vice versa. I may (subliminally or consciously) skip over those portions of the content that might otherwise spur healthy *discussion* and exploration, rather than win/lose debates. It's like reducing all political discussion to Crossfire, the old show pitting "Left" and "Right" against each other. I still remember when Jon Stewart went there to satirize these hosts (esp. a young Tucker Carlson), which contributed to CNN canning the show. But the "Crossfire" mentality was never "canceled," and no matter how erudite the topic, one finds a similar interactive and cognitive style at work in many online venues, including "academic Twitter," where professors and grad students are free to express themselves in ways not entirely compatible with the norms of the classroom. 

 

 

The collapse of discussion into binary debating patterns carries more serious threats to culture than the loss of learning opportunities, though. When watching those vids back in 2006-7, I was put off by the hacker/gamer slang being used in the content, comments and titles. Typical examples might be "Sam OWNS Bill," or the offshoot, "Sam PWNS Bill" on the Question of Free Will/Existence of God/fill-in-the blank-debate. Gamer slang had colonized online public philosophy and other "erudite" realms of discourse online. According to  a Wikipedia article, "the term ["pwn"] implies domination or humiliation of a rival, used primarily in the internet gaming culture to taunt an opponent who has just been soundly defeated." https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0940_pwned.pdf It was taken by teenagers and young adult from the world of hackers where pwning basically meant controlling or compromising another computer or server. So this is more than winning a binary debate, it has a *hostile* connotation, to put it mildly. Ownership of another person is, by definition, chattel slavery. While this is obviously not what is being endorsed online,  the meanings of words have consequences, and as authors like George Lakoff have argued, the "metaphors we live by" say much about our underlying cognitive and social structures. (see his book with Mark Johnson,  Metaphors We Live By: U of Chicago: 1980). These terms, and the metaphors they invoke (e.g. "ownership" of another) seem to encourage some degree of dehumanization of those with whom we disagree.

 

 

More recently, during the 2010s, we've seen the strategical application of these terms, as in the case of "owning the libs." Self-described "liberals" and "progressives," on the other hand, tend to use more generic insults including "moron," "loon," "loser" and "idiot" to label opponents on the Right. https://qz.com/291533/this-is-how-liberals-and-conservatives-insult-each-other/  There are certainly high-stakes conflicts in policy, but depicting them in terms more appropriate to a grade-school playground than town hall meeting actually obscures and emotionalizes matters, generating more heat than light. It dumbs down political culture ever more drastically, and engenders a culture of round-the-clock toxic hostility. While it's true that in politics the history of this hostile style of discourse owes more to Right Wing radio shows than it does to Left Wing culture, this doesn't explain the appeal of the hostile MEGA interaction style now pervading discussions in domains as "refined" as philosophy, or religion among people across the political spectrum. For example, the New Atheism debates-- both pro and con-- of the noughties were characterized by much of the "pwning" and "owning" tropes; and discussions in that domain are still largely fought in crudely insulting and aggressive terms, even if the slang has changed. 

 

 

I think it's easy for most of us to spot these behavioral traits and patterns in others, but how carefully do we evaluate our own output? Why does a blog-site like this one need to state, as a "rule," no less, "Don't be an asshole?" I'm not criticizing the rule, but questioning the conditions that give rise to it. Surely it is addressed to the actual and potential users of this site. To me, to you, to all. We think nothing of such "rules" at this point. It's a perfectly reasonable reminder given the state of interaction these days, right? I find it telling that such a "rule" blends into the background of consciousness like wallpaper. That is, it does not appear to jolt, jar, surprise or confuse anyone (correct me if I'm wrong and it has surprised you in the past). In a sense, it is an acknowledgment of one of the most serious problems we face today in culture and politics, and it would be interesting to see a calmly written post on exactly what it is that makes one an "asshole" online. What are the criteria? When did the traits in question become so omnipresent as to require such rules and warnings? What have we let ourselves become? How might we move towards more humane encounters with one another? 

 

 

I have not answered those questions here. This is intended more as a spur to further thought on the issue. I think it's important to note that from the beginning of Web 2.0 (from the aughts to present), this mentality or interpersonal style was not originally linked solely to politics, but came from a gamer (win or lose) MEGA mentality, in which others are experienced as adversaries to be dominated and humiliated rather than potential partners in prosocial dialogue and discussion. So, while this has certainly been evident and toxic in our politics, the mentality is deeper. Perhaps, in another OP, I will explore socio-historical roots of the problem. But for now I'm more interested in hearing from others. 

 

 

Questions: 

 

Am I exaggerating the problem?

 

 Do you think the problem is unique to a certain ideological/political/cultural groups that you oppose, or do you see it as a pervasive aspect of communication in culture and society? 

 

Have you ever insulted others in the heat of the moment while writing comments? Have you ever been hurt or upset as the recipient of such insults? What do you think are some of the causes of this phenomenon, and how might it be diminished and/or counteracted?