Just want to quickly register that I disagree with your comment (and disagree-voted). This proposed policy reminds me too much of the original meaning of “political correctness” and “party line.” My guess is that we should not have a higher bar for critical voices than complimentary ones, no matter how righteous our cause areas might be.
I can your perspective, and I recognise it’s context dependent.
However, If journalist is writing, or publishing, about deleterious effects from vaccines, they should be very careful to ensure what they’re writing is accurate, because we have a track record of said output being wrong and irreversible. [1]
I suspect I could make a similar argument for a philosopher writing about an ethical or moral movement. It might take more time, but conclude in a similar place.
Do you think there is a symmetrical obligation for people writing positive things about vaccines? If vaccines were in fact not safe or effective then promoting them would also be very harmful.
You’re trying to reason from first principles without factoring in people’s cognitive biases. In a world without cognitive biases, a symmetrical obligation towards “communication seriousnesses” makes sense.
However, I suspect when I give the concrete example of vaccines above, you actually agree with the statement, because your brain is factoring in the negativity bias that exists towards vaccines.
Just to make this more concrete: an incredible amount of work is done to ensure vaccines are safe, and that people trust them. But a handful of viral social media posts can erode people’s confidence. In this world, a symmetrical obligation does not make sense.
Just want to quickly register that I disagree with your comment (and disagree-voted). This proposed policy reminds me too much of the original meaning of “political correctness” and “party line.” My guess is that we should not have a higher bar for critical voices than complimentary ones, no matter how righteous our cause areas might be.
I can your perspective, and I recognise it’s context dependent.
However, If journalist is writing, or publishing, about deleterious effects from vaccines, they should be very careful to ensure what they’re writing is accurate, because we have a track record of said output being wrong and irreversible. [1]
I suspect I could make a similar argument for a philosopher writing about an ethical or moral movement. It might take more time, but conclude in a similar place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_and_autism#Media_role
Do you think there is a symmetrical obligation for people writing positive things about vaccines? If vaccines were in fact not safe or effective then promoting them would also be very harmful.
You’re trying to reason from first principles without factoring in people’s cognitive biases. In a world without cognitive biases, a symmetrical obligation towards “communication seriousnesses” makes sense.
However, I suspect when I give the concrete example of vaccines above, you actually agree with the statement, because your brain is factoring in the negativity bias that exists towards vaccines.
Just to make this more concrete: an incredible amount of work is done to ensure vaccines are safe, and that people trust them. But a handful of viral social media posts can erode people’s confidence. In this world, a symmetrical obligation does not make sense.
Edit: added last paragraph.