Vivek Murthy's Demand for Data on COVID 'Misinformation' Is Part of a Creepy Crusade to Suppress Dissent | Reason - Jacob Sullum:
March 3, 2022 - "Last July, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory that called for a 'whole-of-society' effort to combat the 'urgent threat to public health' posed by 'health misinformation.' Today Murthy asked tech companies to do their part by turning over data on 'COVID-19 misinformation,' including its sources and its propagation through search engines, social media platforms, instant messaging services, and e-commerce sites, by May 2.
"While Murthy himself has no power to compel disclosure of that information, the companies have strong incentives to cooperate, since the Biden administration can make life difficult for them by filing lawsuits, writing regulations, and supporting new legislation. President Joe Biden has endorsed the campaign to suppress 'misinformation,' going so far as to accuse social media platforms of 'killing people' by allowing the spread of anti-vaccine messages. Murthy's advisory, which defines misinformation to include statements that he deems 'misleading' even when they are arguably or verifiably true, says the battle against it might include 'appropriate legal and regulatory measures.'
"All of this is more than a little creepy in a country where people have a constitutional right to express their opinions, even when they are outlandish and ill-founded. It is especially chilling given the administration's highly elastic definition of misinformation, which includes criticism of controversial pronouncements by agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC itself has a long track record of misrepresenting scientific evidence and misleading the public..
"'Defining "misinformation" is a challenging task, and any definition has limitations,' Murthy concedes in his advisory. 'One key issue is whether there can be an objective benchmark for whether something qualifies as misinformation. Some researchers argue that for something to be considered misinformation, it has to go against "scientific consensus." Others consider misinformation to be information that is contrary to the "best available evidence." Both approaches recognize that what counts as misinformation can change over time with new evidence and scientific consensus. This Advisory prefers the "best available evidence" benchmark since claims can be highly misleading and harmful even if the science on an issue isn't yet settled.'
"What does that mean in practice?... Remember that 'what counts as misinformation can change over time.' So if you questioned the evidence in favor of general masking during the first few months of the pandemic, that was not misinformation, because it was consistent with the CDC's position at the time. It was also consistent with advice from Murthy's predecessor as surgeon general, Jerome Adams, who in February 2020 declared that masks 'are NOT effective in preventing [the] general public from catching' COVID-19.
"But after the CDC began recommending general masking on April 4, 2020, saying anything like that suddenly became misinformation. That September, then–CDC Director Robert Redfield declared ... that masks were more effective as a safeguard against COVID-19 than vaccines would prove to be. If you doubted Redfield's claims, according to Murthy, you were aggravating an 'urgent threat to public health'....
"Last August, in a move that was consistent with Murthy's demands, YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) for propagating COVID-19 misinformation by saying 'most of the masks that you can get over the counter' have 'no value'. Five months later, the CDC largely agreed with Paul, saying 'properly fitted respirators provide the highest level of protection,' while 'loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection.' By Murthy's reckoning, the CDC's blessing transformed misinformation into scientifically valid advice....
"The notion that dissent from the official line on public health issues should be treated as an 'urgent threat' to be addressed by a 'whole-of-society' crusade, possibly including 'legal and regulatory measures,' is fundamentally illiberal and inconsistent with freedom of speech. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki describes the administration's demands for suppression of 'misinformation' as 'asks.' But that characterization is risible given the power that the executive branch wields over the companies whose 'cooperation' it is seeking. Censorship by proxy is still censorship."
No comments:
Post a Comment