“to prove this argument I would have to present general information which may be regarded as having informational hazard”
Is there any way to assess the credibility of statements like this (or whether this is actually an argument worth considering in a given specific context)?
It seems like you could use this as a general purpose argument for almost everything.
It was in fact a link on the article about how to kill everybody using multiple simultaneous pandemics—this idea may be regarded by someone as an informational hazard, but it was already suggested by some terrorists from Voluntary Human extinction movement. I also discussed with some biologists and other x-risks researchers and we concluded that it is not an infohazard. I can send you a draft.
“to prove this argument I would have to present general information which may be regarded as having informational hazard”
Is there any way to assess the credibility of statements like this (or whether this is actually an argument worth considering in a given specific context)? It seems like you could use this as a general purpose argument for almost everything.
It was in fact a link on the article about how to kill everybody using multiple simultaneous pandemics—this idea may be regarded by someone as an informational hazard, but it was already suggested by some terrorists from Voluntary Human extinction movement. I also discussed with some biologists and other x-risks researchers and we concluded that it is not an infohazard. I can send you a draft.
I agree statements of this kind are very annoying, whether or not they’re true.