I read the conversation version of the article. In that version the link associated with the comment:
"Research has meticulously mapped the contours of misinformation and disinformation surrounding vaccines"
Leads to a lancet article "Vaccine misinformation and social media".
However this does not detract from the the halflings point. The article is not "meticulous research" at all, it is basically an op ed piece, consisting of a string of opinions and lacking a single reference.
So the person that would lecture us all on misinformation, is either incompetent, does not understand the term, or is herself misinforming by attempting to paint evidence for her argument as far more impactful then it really is.
Later she makes the statement "Studies have repeatedly shown how false claims spread across social media platforms"
This statement links to a single study (not studies) and the study is...wait for it....a modelling study. It is a (terribly simplistic) model of social networks, riddles with questionable assumptions the output of which has absolutely no relevance to a real world situation. Sound familiar?
This is not science. It is computer coding 101. They use no data from real social media networks they simply make up a grossly simplified network and then draw a bunch of assumptions from it. it is terrible work. Cheap and easy to do however, far more so than actual research.
This is not real science. These are not serious people. The conversation is a left wing echo chamber riddled with junk science and midwit people who are unfortunately not quite smart enough to have the humility to acknowledge how little any of us knows.
This is why we don't trust them. Not because of insidious "misinformers".
Thanks Tim. Interesting that the Herald reprint links to a different source. Just goes to show how reliable they are.
Thanks too for your analysis. Pity more people don't read more closely. Perhaps these self-appointed mouthpieces will be a bit more careful about their assertions
One of the fallacies the author of the article did not mention is that of validation by assertion which I imagine is the way that she got to public health being a human right. Cannot find it in the Human Rights Act
"Does the information contain contradictions or logically impossible claims? Many false narratives are internally inconsistent or implausible." - hmmm, rather like, having vaccine passes so the fully vaccinated can have reassurance that they are safe from dangerous unvaccinated people when they go to a bar... because the vaccine is supposed to keep them safe...
"Often there will also be at least some level of emotional manipulation. Disinformation frequently exploits emotions such as fear or anger to enhance engagement and sharing.”
- but, of course, messaging that emanates from governments would never do that, would it?? ("if you get vaccinated you will not die"..."it's pandemic of the unvaccinated"...etc)
“Collaboration between governments, international organisations and tech companies is essential. These stakeholders must work together to detect and limit the spread of harmful content and promote accurate information appropriate to the audience (right message, right messenger, right platform).”
Translation: governments, global organisations (that would include the WHO), and tech companies must censor information and promote desired messages(that is, messages desired by government)
Hmmm... what happens, if, as sometimes has been known to happen, governments are peddling mis-information??
Thanks for that close analysis. When I read Petousis-Harris's column, I was struck by the fact she never mentioned once the contradictory and plainly false messages that came from the govt and scientists like her about the vax's efficacy, transmission etc. These of course rightly fuelled criticism and scepticism.
My main conclusion was that she had learned nothing from the Covid experience and is still claiming the authorities always know best and critics should keep quiet.
Thanks for the comment Graham. Other comments have read the piece closely and have pointed to issues in the piece. Good critical analysis before accepting assertions as truth.
I read the conversation version of the article. In that version the link associated with the comment:
"Research has meticulously mapped the contours of misinformation and disinformation surrounding vaccines"
Leads to a lancet article "Vaccine misinformation and social media".
However this does not detract from the the halflings point. The article is not "meticulous research" at all, it is basically an op ed piece, consisting of a string of opinions and lacking a single reference.
So the person that would lecture us all on misinformation, is either incompetent, does not understand the term, or is herself misinforming by attempting to paint evidence for her argument as far more impactful then it really is.
Later she makes the statement "Studies have repeatedly shown how false claims spread across social media platforms"
This statement links to a single study (not studies) and the study is...wait for it....a modelling study. It is a (terribly simplistic) model of social networks, riddles with questionable assumptions the output of which has absolutely no relevance to a real world situation. Sound familiar?
This is not science. It is computer coding 101. They use no data from real social media networks they simply make up a grossly simplified network and then draw a bunch of assumptions from it. it is terrible work. Cheap and easy to do however, far more so than actual research.
This is not real science. These are not serious people. The conversation is a left wing echo chamber riddled with junk science and midwit people who are unfortunately not quite smart enough to have the humility to acknowledge how little any of us knows.
This is why we don't trust them. Not because of insidious "misinformers".
Thanks Tim. Interesting that the Herald reprint links to a different source. Just goes to show how reliable they are.
Thanks too for your analysis. Pity more people don't read more closely. Perhaps these self-appointed mouthpieces will be a bit more careful about their assertions
" a tightrope between freedom of speech and protecting public health. Both are human rights.”
Oh, I didn't notice when did 'protecting public health' become a human right?
(... and if it were, wouldn't that then involve ensuring hospital systems are not stretched past capacity)
My hypocrisy sensor is sending me alerts while reading extracts of her article...
Sally
Thanks for your comments on this piece.
One of the fallacies the author of the article did not mention is that of validation by assertion which I imagine is the way that she got to public health being a human right. Cannot find it in the Human Rights Act
"Does the information contain contradictions or logically impossible claims? Many false narratives are internally inconsistent or implausible." - hmmm, rather like, having vaccine passes so the fully vaccinated can have reassurance that they are safe from dangerous unvaccinated people when they go to a bar... because the vaccine is supposed to keep them safe...
"Often there will also be at least some level of emotional manipulation. Disinformation frequently exploits emotions such as fear or anger to enhance engagement and sharing.”
- but, of course, messaging that emanates from governments would never do that, would it?? ("if you get vaccinated you will not die"..."it's pandemic of the unvaccinated"...etc)
“Collaboration between governments, international organisations and tech companies is essential. These stakeholders must work together to detect and limit the spread of harmful content and promote accurate information appropriate to the audience (right message, right messenger, right platform).”
Translation: governments, global organisations (that would include the WHO), and tech companies must censor information and promote desired messages(that is, messages desired by government)
Hmmm... what happens, if, as sometimes has been known to happen, governments are peddling mis-information??
Thanks for that close analysis. When I read Petousis-Harris's column, I was struck by the fact she never mentioned once the contradictory and plainly false messages that came from the govt and scientists like her about the vax's efficacy, transmission etc. These of course rightly fuelled criticism and scepticism.
My main conclusion was that she had learned nothing from the Covid experience and is still claiming the authorities always know best and critics should keep quiet.
Thanks for the comment Graham. Other comments have read the piece closely and have pointed to issues in the piece. Good critical analysis before accepting assertions as truth.