• jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    112
    ·
    2 months ago

    Censorship of dissidence discussions due to “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and only allowing “science.”

    Our science institutions and media are just as corrupt as our politicians; that is why critical thinking should be encouraged instead of more censorship to baby the people.

    • Deestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Keeping predatory grifters away from health discourse is on a different level than discussions of differing opinions.

      • metaStatic@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        2 months ago

        it’s the exercise of soft power from the state that has always made academic pursuits suspect, if you go against the narrative you might find your funding cut. but I’m sure OP can speak for themselves.

          • metaStatic@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            2 months ago

            it’s the threat of losing funding not the withholding of funding before the fact.

            self censorship is much cheaper than any other form of enforcement.

            • Kroxx@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              27
              ·
              2 months ago

              As someone who’s been a STEM researcher for about a decade, this person has no clue what they are talking about

                • Kroxx@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  reproduction studies

                  What the hell are you talking about, what is a reproduction study?

                  You either mean a reproducible study or a study specifically on something reproducing which is irrelevant. Again you don’t even know what you are talking about and 3 from college, I work in industry now so I don’t publish. We also directly collaborate with a large university and a national laboratory, so I know a thing or two about how grant funding is acquired from both an academic and industrial side(industries such as mine actually fund studies that do get publicly published). There are absolutely issues with politics in academia, it just isn’t what you are describing.

                  • metaStatic@kbin.earth
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    24
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    You either mean

                    can you clean my teeth while you’re in there?

                    and I meant Replication Study thought you already answered that question.

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              and you think publishing won’t allow journals to sell stories to the press and sell more copies and shake up the industry, leading to awareness and campaigns to fund the scientist? there’s like no information online on self-censorship in academia, not even from 2nd world countries, so this sounds really sketchy.

      • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        2 months ago

        I am not disputing that claim.

        I am pointing out the “science” that started the whole event.

        IIRC, it was a reputable source, not just some random website talking conspiracies.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        it’s not up to admins to decide what is disinformation and what is not

        Then who? You, perhaps? If garbage isn’t taken out we end up with extreme right insanity like injecting bleach for covid treatment. What you’re pushing for is literally called anarchism and it’s childish af.

        • KriksD@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          2 months ago

          I read a little more about this situation, and I agree after all. I made a mistake by jumping into a discussion I knew little about. I guess there are some topics that may be quite harmful.

          Then who? You, perhaps?

          I’ll be honest, this is close to what I was thinking initially. I believe the person who consumes information is responsible for checking if this same information is true. But now I see it may not be as simple.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So when something is obvious disinformation and can easily be proven to be disinformation they should just do nothing about it because admins aren’t there to decide what is and isn’t disinformation?

        You signed up to the wrong website then, 8chan is what you’re looking for!

        • KriksD@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I already said that I agree with it in my other comments. I was dumb enough to talk about something I knew too little about. No obvious and harmful disinformation should be publicly spread, obviously. I guess, I better delete my comment to stop these replies and downvotes.

      • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        2 months ago

        it’s not up to admins to decide what is disinformation and what is not.

        I agree, we are becoming much more similar to other social media sites.

        • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          2 months ago

          There must be some moderation or the loudest but stupidest would have the rest of us unable to have discussions. I don’t agree with demoting the entire mod team but ehh, cats are obligate carnivores. Not giving them meat will make them sick and possibly die. Encouraging that contrary to reality is encouraging animal abuse. If they want a vegan pet it can’t be a cat.

          • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            2 months ago

            some moderation or the loudest but stupidest would have the rest of us unable to have discussions

            I don’t agree on this; it is just using it as an excuse to censor dissent.

            Not giving them meat will make them sick and possibly die.

            Yes, many on Lemmy pointed that out, and enough reports were made that admins got heavily involved in the managing of the community, which should be a huge concern for those that left Reddit for similar reasons.

            Discussions are good for those that can handle critical thinking, but it seems that any “science” not aligning to the status quo will be censored.

            This goes back to more enforcement and more interference with what moderators want vs. admins vs. users.

            IMO: Like our society and our social media, Lemmy is becoming much more similar to a Police State.[1].


            1. [1] Police State - DEAD PREZ | 03:40 | https://youtu.be/Ic-E7OHWvGQ ↩︎

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              2 months ago

              some moderation or the loudest but stupidest would have the rest of us unable to have discussions

              I don’t agree on this; it is just using it as an excuse to censor dissent.

              You WOULD think so, being one of the loudest and stupidest.

              The controversy is about abusing cats, who are obligate carnivores, by forcing them to be vegan. It’s about not enabling animal abuse, not censorship overreach.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  There’s “not aligning” and then there’s “spreading misinformation in furtherance of animal abuse”.

                  You’re firmly in the latter camp, so you can gtfo with your persecution complex bullshit.