COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Risks of More Complex Character and the Visions of the Future World – Valdai Discussion Club

The new cosmic fear produced by COVID-19 has become a great challenge for mankind. The process of overcoming it is connected to a large extent with the establishment of effective cosmopolitan solidarity and humanely-oriented global medical surveillance with the aim of working out effective means to prevent fake news that traumatise the social consciousness, writes Sergey Kravchenko, Head of the Department of Sociology at MGIMO University.

According to Ulrich Beck, the global risks of the World Risk Society have the following three characteristic features: 1) delocalisation (their causes are not limited to one geographic location); 2) incalculability (their consequences are in principle incalculable); 3) non-compensability (human genetics makes possible irreversible interventions in human existence). All these features are seen in the risks of COVID-19 and they have even increased and become more complex. Thus, the delocalisation concerns not only the geographic location but also bio space: some scientists point to the proliferation of viruses that can move from animal to humans and back, making illnesses more difficult to cure. The incalculability has redoubled due to the fact that there are no commonly recognised methods to estimate them. Besides, we have to make do not only with the damage produced by real viruses but with the one made by their mystifications. I mean that many risks of COVID-19 are socially and culturally constructed; a lot of myths and fake news have appeared about their influence. The whole of humanity is observing the deaths of many people in real time. Some viewers may not even realise that their consciousness is being traumatised very often they accept exaggerated news as real that increases the effects of liquid fear (Bauman), which is now becoming global in nature. This blurs the distinction between the risks of COVID-19 and the cultural perception of them. The non-compensability depends not only on irreversible interventions in human body but on the incurable traumas of humanness and substantial rationality; the life-worlds of people.

At first sight, it seems the recognition of the complex risks posed by COVID-19 might lead to a kind of post-national sense of responsibility, give a start for elaborating a humanely oriented global system of medical surveillance, which is aimed at preventing different epidemics. Some political leaders argue that the consequences of the pandemic might unite the human inhabitants of the Earth after their years of confrontations.

However, the real picture is the reverse. In Europe and throughout the world, one can see disintegration, isolation, and even the rise of nationalism and xenophobia. The declared European values do not function. Reaction to risks presupposes decisions and actions. For Italians, the risks posed by COVID-19 are more important than other threats. Consequently, they expect the help from the European Union, but the organisation is paralysed and does not make decisions rendering the necessary medical, financial and monetary support. The difference in interests of practically all the countries of the European Union is evident. They do not only close their borders on quasi-laws but apply to a national mobilisation, stop the social and medical cooperation which is very acute for the management of the new global risks. Nothing is done to overcome the myths of the pandemic. Moreover, new enclaves with sick people have appeared.

At the same time, I believe that this tragic situation will not last forever, and we should think about the post-COVID-19 world. Here are some glimpses at the possible hopes and the visions of the future world. The consequences of the pandemic have not produced simply the growth of world disorder. The common challenges to humanity may foster the establishment of a completely new world order based on cosmopolitan ethics and solidarity. Certainly, the realisation of this depends on peoples agency, and the concrete humanely oriented deeds of the political leaders. A good example of it is Vladimir Putins idea to make humanitarian corridors. In order to realise this, Russia has already rendered medical help to China, Italy, the USA, and Serbia.

The countries and their elites have reacted differently to the risks of COVID-19, with positive and negative results. This will influence the characteristic features of the futures of these nations. Undoubtedly, in the nearest future, there will appear new political movements with demands for global medical surveillance and health security. Consequently, new leaders will come to power. Whether Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are among them depends on the results of the struggle against COVID-19 and the effect of the pandemic on their countries. The challenges of the pandemic will change the essence of Europe as a turbulent and mighty continent. In order to limit the existing turbulence and achieve sustainable development, the new political leaders will pass over from confrontations to different forms of cooperation with a diverse array of actors on the world stage. It is highly likely that in the renewed European Union, China, which displayed achievements in overcoming the pandemics and rendered concrete support to different countries, will acquire a special friendly status. Consequently, there are basic grounds for re-establishing good political and economic relations between the West and Russia.

Certainly, the birth of the post-COVID-19 world will be difficult, perhaps, accompanied by a recession which, however, may become a significant factor of the new world order based on sharing economy, social solidarity and integral forms of freedom and disciplinary. I believe the fetishism of modesty in the consumption is being born. There have already appeared collective forms of consumption not only the sharing of cars, places of living but food and medicine sharing.

There are some trends toward the achievement of social justice and equality in the organisation of medical help. During the pandemic, the Norwegian authorities have done a lot in constructing the possibilities for all the people to have proper access to medical care. These practices might be developed in other countries. The significance of social insurance would be revised. Its high organisation in Germany helped to save the lives of many more patients if we compare it with other countries. The distant care systems based on digitalisation have proved their efficiency these activities should be extended.

It is necessary to re-discover the place and role of nations in world politics. In addition to the existing criteria (economic development, the possession of weaponry, etc.), new ones should be taken into consideration the power to effectively struggle with epidemics, to produce ecological and pharmacological safety for citizens, the possibility to re-orient the digital, from pragmatic consumerism to health care. Human rights should be extended, including the right to health care, safety, and a friendly environment.

The new cosmic fear produced by COVID-19 has become a great challenge to mankind. The process of overcoming it is connected to a large extent with the establishment of effective cosmopolitan solidarity and global humanely-oriented medical surveillance, with the aim to work out effective means to prevent fakes that traumatise the social consciousness. All these prepositions might make the emerging post-COVID-19 world more rational and humane.

Read the original:

COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Risks of More Complex Character and the Visions of the Future World - Valdai Discussion Club

Rothamsted turn to harvesting coronavirus data – Lab News

A group of researchers based at Rothamsted Research, one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world, has responded to a request from the White House, Microsoft, Mark Zuckerberg and others to find a way to rapidly sift through the mountain of COVID-19 scientific data.

Taking time off fromtheir own research, the Rothamsted teamrepurposeda tool they had originally developed to help crop scientists, to provide medical researchers with quick and intuitive access to all documented linkages between genes, medicines, and the virus.

By bringing together COVID-19 related data in one place, the hope is that this will speed up the international search for useful drugs, stop researchers repeating work done elsewhere, avoid harmful interventions, and ultimately, help pave the way to a vaccine.

A US Government-backed call had urged the worlds artificial intelligence experts to develop new text and data mining techniques that could help the science community answer urgent questions related to the deadly outbreak.

Project leader, Dr Keywan Hassani-Pak, originally developed the KnetMiner software to support scientists studying complex plant traits and diseases but together with his team, quickly realized the potential of it to help aid coronavirus research.

Using KnetMiner, medical researchers can now search for genes and keywords, visualize connections between biological concepts and explore knowledge relating to the new coronavirus and COVID-19 disease.

Users can search for drugs related to coronavirus and explore the surrounding connected data. Alternatively, they can investigate what pathways the drugs affect and visualize if any negative downstream effects may be present with using the drug in certain diseased populations.

The genetic component of how SARS-CoV-2 and the human body interact can also be explored.

The software links together almost 170,000 scientific articles, the majority with detailed information about human genes, plus SARS and COVID-19 related proteins, drugs and other medical conditions.

This works out at more than 1.6 million relationships between biological entities something that would take years of searching for, using conventional means.

We have connected the dots in the COVID-19 biomedical data and put the information in a machine-readable format and in context with human genetics, pathogen-host, and drug-target interaction data said Dr Hassani-Pak.

It was mid-March when The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy launched the COVID-19 call to action.

Over 500 scientists, software developers and clinicians joined forces in the COVID-19 virtual Biohackathon at the beginning of April to develop new tools for working with COVID-19 data.

Working from their homes, the team of Joseph Hearnshaw, Dr Marco Brandizi, Ajit Singh and Dr Keywan Hassani-Pak managed to develop the COVID-19 knowledge graph for KnetMiner in less than a month.

Dr Hassani-Pak said: I knew our technology was versatile, but to deliver this within such a short time scale was beyond my expectation and only possible due to a fantastic team and a global effort to make COVID-19 data openly available.

The newly developed biomedical resource offers developers and analysts the opportunity to use our data for new analyses and applications. A full download of our COVID-19 knowledge graph is available on request.

The COVID-19 KnetMiner is available atwww.knetminer.org/COVID-19.

The knowledge graph can be freely accessed through public RDF and Neo4j endpointshttps://github.com/Rothamsted/covid19-kg/blob/master/RawDataEndPoints.md

An example COVID-19 network can be explored and shared athttps://knetminer.com/beta/knetspace/network/424a2a44-24c2-4c2c-80bb-e3493b0de003

The datasets used to build the COVID-19 KG are athttps://knetminer.org/COVID-19/html/release.html

Continue reading here:

Rothamsted turn to harvesting coronavirus data - Lab News

Complement genes add to sex-based vulnerability in lupus and schizophrenia – UAB News

The complement system is part of the bodys immune system to fight pathogens and remove cell debris. Its role in two autoimmune diseases and a mental disorder is a surprise.

The complement system is part of the bodys immune system to fight pathogens and remove cell debris. Its role in two autoimmune diseases and a mental disorder is a surprise.Variants in a gene of the human immune system cause men and women to have different vulnerabilities to the autoimmune diseases lupus and Sjgrens syndrome, according to findings published today in the journal Nature. This extends recent work that showed the gene variants could increase risk for schizophrenia.

The gene variants are a member of the complement system, a cascade of proteins that help antibodies and phagocytic cells remove damaged cells of a persons own body, as well as an infection defense that promotes inflammation and attacks pathogens. Normally the complement system keeps a person healthy in the face of pathogens; it also helps cart away the debris of damaged human cells before the body can mount an autoimmune attack. Now complement gene variants apparently play a contributing role in the diseases systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjgrens syndrome and schizophrenia.

It had been known that all three illnesses had common genetic associations with a section of the human chromosome called the major histocompatibility complex, or MHC. This region on chromosome 6 includes many genes that regulate the immune system. However, making an association with a specific gene or with the mutational variants of a specific gene that are called alleles has been difficult, partly because the MHC on human chromosome 6 spans three million base-pairs of DNA.

The Nature paper is a collaboration of 22 authors at 10 institutions in the United States and one in England, along with many members of a schizophrenia working group. Robert Kimberly, M.D., professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Center for Clinical and Translational Science, is a co-author of the research, which was led by corresponding author Steven McCarroll, Ph.D., assistant professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School.

The identified alleles are complement component 4A and 4B, known as C4A and C4B.

The research showed that different combinations of C4A and C4B copy numbers generate a sevenfold variation in risk for lupus and 16-fold variation in risk for Sjgrens syndrome among people with common C4 genotypes. Paradoxically, the same C4 alleles that previously were shown to increase risk for schizophrenia had a different impact for lupus and Sjgrens syndrome they greatly reduced risk in those diseases. In all three illnesses, the C4 alleles acted more strongly in men than in women.

For the complement proteins that are encoded by the genes for C4 and for complement component 3, or C3, both C4 protein and its effector C3 protein were present at greater levels in men than in women in cerebrospinal fluid and blood plasma among adults ages 20-50. Intriguingly, that is the age range when the three diseases differentially affect men and women for unknown reasons. Lupus and Sjgrens syndrome affect women of childbearing age nine times more than they do men of similar age. In contrast, in schizophrenia, women exhibit less severe symptoms, more frequent remission of symptoms, lower relapse rates and lower overall incidence than men, who are affected more frequently and more severely.

Both men and women have an age-dependent elevation of C4 and C3 protein levels in blood plasma. In men, this occurs early in adulthood, ages 20-30. In women, the elevation is closer to menopause, ages 40-50. Thus, differences in complement protein levels in men and women occur mostly during the reproductive years, ages 20-50.

The researchers say sex differences in complement protein levels may help explain the larger effects of C4 alleles in men, the greater risk of women for lupus and Sjgrens, and the greater vulnerability of men for schizophrenia.

Robert Kimberly, M.D.The ages of pronounced sex differences in complement levels correspond to the ages when men and women differ in disease incidence. In schizophrenia cases, men outnumber women in early adulthood; but that disparity of onset lessens after age 40. In lupus, female cases greatly outnumber male cases during childbearing years; but that difference is much less for disease onset after age 50 or during childhood. In Sjgrens syndrome, women are more vulnerable than are men before age 50.

The researchers say the differing effect of C4 alleles in schizophrenia versus lupus and Sjgrens syndrome will be important to consider in any therapeutic effort to engage the complement system. They also said, Why and how biology has come to create this sexual dimorphism in the complement system in humans presents interesting questions for immune and evolutionary biology.

Co-authors with McCarroll and Kimberly for the paper, Complement genes contribute sex-biased vulnerability in diverse illnesses, are Nolan Kamitaki, Aswin Sekar, Heather de Rivera, Katherine Tooley and Christine Seidman, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts; Robert Handsaker and Christopher Whelan, Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology; David Morris, Philip Tombleson and Timothy Vyse, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom; Kimberly Taylor and Lindsey Criswell, University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine; Loes Olde Loohuis and Roel Ophoff, University of California-Los Angeles; Michael Boehnke, University of Michigan; Kenneth Kaufman and John Harley, Cincinnati Childrens Hospital Medical Center, Ohio; Carl Langefeld, Wake Forest School of Medicine, North Carolina; Michele Pato and Carlos Pato, State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center; and Robert Graham, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, California.

Support came from National Institutes of Health grants HG006855, MH112491, MH105641 and MH105653; and from the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research.

At UAB, Kimberly holds the Howard L. Holley Research Chair in Rheumatology.

See the article here:

Complement genes add to sex-based vulnerability in lupus and schizophrenia - UAB News

DU to set up School of Public Health – The Indian Express

By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Updated: May 18, 2020 9:42:38 am An 11-member advisory council, chaired by Professor K Shrinath Reddy, president of Public Health Foundation of India, has also been constituted to design and manage programmes of the institute. (File)

Delhi University has announced the establishment of a new public health school, citing the need for manpower and research in the field.

The university administration has said the new institute Delhi School of Public Health would be set up using funds from the Institute of Eminence scheme. Delhi University had received the tag in September 2019. It said the move is in response to the need for public health research in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Professor R N K Bamezai, a specialist in the field of human genetics, has been appointed the honorary director of the institute. Professor Bamezai is a former dean of the School of Life Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University and former vice-chancellor of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University.

An 11-member advisory council, chaired by Professor K Shrinath Reddy, president of Public Health Foundation of India, has also been constituted to design and manage programmes of the institute.

The overarching aim of the school is to encourage students and researchers to experience a plethora of programmes of interdisciplinary nature and relevance which are not available at present in this or any other institution. This novel institution offers new avenues to pool academic and infrastructure resources to look at the Public Health theme in an integrated fashion and contribute to national development. The University of Delhi understands its responsibility to train and utilise human knowledge and infrastructure resources for understanding and innovating novel ways of diagnosis, prevention and cure of various communicable and non-communicable diseases, read a statement by registrar of the university.

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Education News, download Indian Express App.

Continue reading here:

DU to set up School of Public Health - The Indian Express

Covid-19 research: 45 Bengaluru startups working on medicine, testing methods and vaccine – Economic Times

Bangalore: The State Government will set up a committee to ensure co-ordination between the government and private firms that are engaged in research work to come up with solutions to control the spread of Covid-19 as well as a cure for it.

Deputy chief minister CN Ashwath Narayan on Thursday asked the IT/BT department to set up a committee at the earliest. The deputy chief minister took a decision to this effect after he visited Bengaluru Bio Innovation Centre.

About 45 startups are working at the innovation centre on projects to find a vaccine, medicine and quick testing technology for Covid 19, he said.

Narayan, who holds the IT/BT portfolio as well, interacted with the young entrepreneurs. "I am glad that all startups here are working to find a solution to the pandemic. Some are at clinical trial stage while a few have already applied for with the competent authorities for conducting tests, he remarked.

ROBOT AT WORK: He unveiled the Programmable Robot that would separate the Saliva from the swab in no time. The robot developed by SN Life Sciences has an ability to test eight different samples at a time, he said.

On the overall research work taking place at the innovation centre, he said: "This is a great sign for Bengaluru, Karnataka and India, he said adding that a quick solution will help to ensure a balance between life and livelihood.

He also commended the efforts Neuome Technologies which has a technology that enables on-the-spot testing within 5 minutes for asymptomatic as well as symptomatic cases.

Ashwath Narayan visited the Centre for Human Genetics and Bio Informatics and inspected the lab there.

Read more:

Covid-19 research: 45 Bengaluru startups working on medicine, testing methods and vaccine - Economic Times

Immortalized Cell Line Market Development, Trends, Key Driven Factors, Segmentation And Forecast to 2020-2026 – Cole of Duty

Research Laboratories

The report is a compilation of different studies, including regional analysis where leading regional Immortalized Cell Line markets are comprehensive studied by market experts. Both developed and developing regions and countries are covered in the report for a 360-degree geographic analysis of the Immortalized Cell Line market. The regional analysis section helps readers to become familiar with the growth patterns of important regional Immortalized Cell Line markets. It also provides information on lucrative opportunities available in key regional Immortalized Cell Line markets.

Ask For Discounts, Click Here @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=177472&utm_source=COD&utm_medium=888

Table of Content

1 Introduction of Immortalized Cell Line Market

1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions

2 Executive Summary

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources

4 Immortalized Cell Line Market Outlook

4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis

5 Immortalized Cell Line Market, By Deployment Model

5.1 Overview

6 Immortalized Cell Line Market, By Solution

6.1 Overview

7 Immortalized Cell Line Market, By Vertical

7.1 Overview

8 Immortalized Cell Line Market, By Geography

8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East

9 Immortalized Cell Line Market Competitive Landscape

9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies

10 Company Profiles

10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments

11 Appendix

11.1 Related Research

Get Complete Report

@ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/need-customization/?rid=177472&utm_source=COD&utm_medium=888

About Us:

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations with the aim of delivering functional expertise. We provide reports for all industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverage and more. These reports deliver an in-depth study of the market with industry analysis, market value for regions and countries and trends that are pertinent to the industry.

Contact Us:

Mr. Steven Fernandes

Market Research Intellect

New Jersey ( USA )

Tel: +1-650-781-4080

Tags: Immortalized Cell Line Market Size, Immortalized Cell Line Market Trends, Immortalized Cell Line Market Growth, Immortalized Cell Line Market Forecast, Immortalized Cell Line Market Analysis Sarkari result, Government Jobs, Sarkari naukri, NMK, Majhi Naukri,

See original here:

Immortalized Cell Line Market Development, Trends, Key Driven Factors, Segmentation And Forecast to 2020-2026 - Cole of Duty

Bitcoin.com’s Mining Video Censored: The Tale of Youtube’s Blatant Censorship and Propaganda – Bitcoin News

During the last few years, the Google-owned Youtube platform has been accused of massive censorship and in the last three months, the video streaming business resembles the Ministry of Propaganda, more than an online video-sharing platform. This week Bitcoin.com was also censored for sharing a video about our bitcoin mining pool. Bitcoin.coms Youtube account was given one strike for allegedly violating community guidelines.

When the online video-sharing platform Youtube was first released in February 2005, it was a community of people sharing ideas with very little censorship and moderation. Nowadays, Youtube is under the ownership of Google, and the firms CEO Susan Wojcicki has been outspoken about removing videos. Weeks ago, Wojcicki told CNN that any videos that went against the WHO narrative in regards to the Covid-19 outbreak would be removed.

Last year, Youtube de-platformed a myriad of alt-right and so-called conspiracy groups and removed these channels from the video streaming site. Youtube also started harassing cryptocurrency content creators and Youtubers who operated channels that discussed bitcoin and other digital assets. During the holiday season in 2019, Youtube officials purged a massive number of cryptocurrency video channels for very little reasoning. The company typically just tells the person that the channel had violated community guidelines.

Prior to Bitcoin.coms recent video removal and strike, Wojcickis words came to fruition as her company banned many videos that spoke out against the WHOs narrative when it came to an oppositional narrative toward official coronavirus data. Youtube and Wojcicki took it upon themselves to shelter the public from an opposite narrative that claims herd immunity works and the fatality rate for Covid-19 was extremely over-exaggerated.

We now know that the proof is right in front of our faces and many respected scientific think tanks and epidemiologists have told the public that the lockdowns were very irrational. Despite the proof, Youtube has banned a number of videos that go against the ongoing fear-mongering narrative. When a video was posted on Youtube that featured Dr. Daniel W. Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi from California, the video got 5 million views before it was removed. Youtubes excuse was:

We quickly remove flagged content that violate [sic] our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local health authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance.

Youtube also banned a video called Plandemic, which featured Dr. Judy Mikovits soon after it was published on the online video sharing platform. Youtube, however, does allow videos that rebut Judy Mikovits, Daniel W. Erickson, and Dr. Artin Massihis narratives. The company has no issues allowing rebuttals that stay on course with the fear-mongering narrative.

But any dissenting views against the lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, and social distancing continued to be removed to this day. The former head of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at Rockefeller University, Dr. Knut M. Wittkowski, recently told the public that Youtube had banned his video that went against the lockdown, and over-reaction narrative after it gathered more than 1.3 million views. Dr. Andrew Kaufmans videos were also removed, when he spoke out against the stay-at-home narrative and the data spread by people like the epidemiologist Neil Ferguson.

Now Youtube has banned one of Bitcoin.coms videos for sharing information about our mining pool. The video removal was based on the companys sale of regulated goods policy and the video allegedly went against community guidelines. The Bitcoin.com account was given a single strike, which gives the account a one week probation period. Two to three strikes could lead to far worse restrictions against the Bitcoin.com account that merely shares information and resources about cryptocurrency solutions. Bitcoin.coms CEO Mate Tokay has spoken out against the Youtube censorship in a tweet letting the company and Wojcicki know they have been immoral.

History shows that censorship has produced some manipulated realities and it has furthered evil time and time again. Youtube is a private company and it can do whatever it wants, but the censorship still speaks volumes on the companys tethered relationship with the status quo. Theres a reason why cryptocurrency videos are removed and it is because it goes against Youtubes financial masters. The reason why Youtube bans certain groups is because those groups gain grass-roots attention and make people think critically.

Youtube has banned videos that go against the Covid-19 narrative as well, because people started realizing that a virus with a 99% survival rate isnt as horrible as we all thought. Concrete evidence shows that the lockdowns and stay-at-home orders did absolutely nothing, even though Youtube continues to scream the less-powerful Covid-19 mantras. Staying at home saves lives, Were all in this together, Flatten the curve, and other propaganda slogans are still aired on nearly every ad published on Youtube today.

Censorship and propaganda techniques paint a clear perspective of Youtubes true colors. Censoring Bitcoin.coms mining video bolsters the argument that Youtube does not have the best interests of global citizens in mind. If anything, people who understand Youtubes vile acts of censorship and misinformation, should vacate the platform in great numbers and leverage a more decentralized online video sharing application like Lbry, or Bitchute. As the economic think tank Fee.org has said: Youtubes censorship of dissenting doctors will backfire.

What do you think about Youtubes censorship and propaganda techniques these last few months? Let us know in the comments below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Youtube, Twitter,

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Read disclaimer

Go here to see the original:

Bitcoin.com's Mining Video Censored: The Tale of Youtube's Blatant Censorship and Propaganda - Bitcoin News

Here’s How to Fight Censorship In a Nutshell – Discovery Institute

The editors at the prominent science journal BioEssays recently published an editorial demanding government-mandated censorship of intelligent design. My colleagues and I had expected something like this before long. They singled out Evolution News in particular as a being in need of prejudicial treatment from the huge tech companies that dominate electronic media. If giants like Google or Facebook hesitate, then says biologist Dave Speijer, the government should Make them.

The threat is no joke. You were aware that censors are already at work suppressing other ideas on the Internet that they dont like. Intelligent design was next in line.

What can you do to make a meaningful statement in favor of free speech? Heres an idea: Get a copy of the new book from Discovery Institute Press, Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell, the most accessible and up-to-date introduction to ID thats ever been released. It goes on sale today on Amazon, in paperback and Kindle formats.

The five authors, led by Thomas Y. Lo, cover the range of evidence for design in under 150 pages. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, and more theres no subject we cover at Evolution News that is left out, but it is all treated in a way that anyone can understand.

Why is it an effective counter to the bullies at BioEssays who want to shut down views that point to an underlying purpose in the cosmos?

As Dr. Lo writes in his Introduction, shuffling objective evidence of design under the rug is something that science textbooks have been doing for decades. He tells a moving story about his own journey to maturity as a scientist and as a religious believer, how his Christian faith unraveled when he was a young man, only to be regained as he realized what had been left out of his education: cosmological evidence of creation ex nihilo at the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe, the truth about 19th-century German zoologists Ernst Haeckels classic embryo drawings, the puzzle of the Cambrian event that Charles Darwin acknowledged but that the textbooks papered over or ignored altogether.

He recalls one scientist, University of San Francisco biologist Paul Chien, whom he heard give a lecture thirty years ago. Dr Chien explained the challenge of the Cambrian explosion to standard Darwinian accounts of evolution. Today, Dr. Chien contributed a chapter to the Nutshell book that includes his own personal stories of visiting key Cambrian fossil sites.

The textbooks leave most or all of this out. In the same tradition, todays censors are bent on keeping minds closed. But they are more dangerous because of the way technology has turned social media platforms into potential bottlenecks.

So get Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell for yourself, or share it with a friend, or with a student. The book is just in time because, under an endless lockdown in many places, theres a bull market for studying at home. You might have a high school student in your household, or a college student, who would benefit from the insights and crystal-clear presentation of Lo, Chien, and their co-authors, Eric Anderson, Robert Alston, and Robert Waltzer.

Arguments for intelligent design, conveyed in weighty tomes, can be daunting for the learner seeking an introduction. As chemist Marcos Eberlin quips, evolutionists hope you dont know chemistry. Sometimes it seems that ID proponents assume that you know not only chemistry, but biology, physics, mathematics, computer engineering, and philosophy, just for starters. Thomas Lo has done a service by cutting through much detail to the core of intelligent design.

For more on BioEssays and its call for suppression, see here:

You are not powerless. Stick it to the censors by ordering your copy now.

Original post:

Here's How to Fight Censorship In a Nutshell - Discovery Institute

What Triggered a Biology Journal to Demand Government Censorship of Intelligent Design – Discovery Institute

Asnoted here already, the prominent science journalBioEssayshas issued a remarkable editorial by biologist Dave Speijer, Bad Faith Reasoning, Predictable Chaos, and the Truth. The article is like a thermometer measuring a fever among evolutionists. Speijer calls for intelligent design websites, including the one youre reading now, to be censored by government mandate. And hes quite serious. It would be shocking were it not for the fact that censors are already empowered at YouTube, Facebook, and on other social media, to scour the Internet and wipe out ideas they dont like. This is not a drill.

The editorial proposes that search engines be required to have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science. BioEssays sounds off against proponents of intelligent design, saying we use bad faith reasoning, misquote in order to subvert belief in Darwinian evolution, promote nonscientific explanations, and engage in spreading misinformation. A crude graphic accompanies the article, calling ID proponents Bio-Liars.

Not content with just a little hysterical overwriting, Speijer goes on to call us the infamous Discovery Institute that promotes creationism in a tuxedo. Thats not acheaptuxedo, mind you, as the insult usually goes. We are moving on up, in our wardrobe as in the peril that diehard Darwin defenders believe that we pose. In Speijers telling, we are guilty of peddling unscientific, untenable positions, using cut and paste distortions. We publish consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science. Some of these bad arguments include the claim that life is so complicated that it cannot be the result of random processes, a position that he says can be refuted by citing many examples of unintelligent or even downright stupid designs found in living organisms. With unintended irony, he goes on to lament the deterioration of our media ecosystem where debates should only take place among those who are part of a mature complex society.

What exactly were the falsehoods on ID Bio-Liar websites that led the mature and complex editors ofBioEssaysto publish this tirade? It was two articles Dr. Speijer read onEvolution Newsthat set him off. A lot is at stake (free speech, for one thing) so lets take a look in some detail.

One of the offending articles was published here last November, BioEssaysEditor: Junk DNA Full of Information! Including Genome-Sized Genomic Code. Speijer says:

A big problem with grasping the nature of complexity, unpredictability, and layers of interactions is a recurring theme in the antievolution community. Not so long ago, Andrew Moore speculated about the extent to which the socalled junk DNA might be performing (noncoding) functions, taking his inspiration from aBioEssayspaper by Giorgio Bernardi, claiming that (much of) it might be involved in orchestrating the nuclear chromosomal architecture. I presume he was somewhat surprised when he encountered quotes taken from his column under the heading of intelligent design, considering he so clearly dealt with the issues at hand from an evolutionary perspective. However, on reflection, this happening could have been predicted with high likelihood.

Here is his complaint: ID proponents fail to grasp the nature of complexity, unpredictability, and layers of interactions in genomic studies. Speijer thinks the staff-authored article at Evolution News misrepresented BioEssays editor Andrew Moore, making it appear he advocates intelligent design, whereas Moore so clearly dealt with the issues at hand from an evolutionary perspective.

So did our article misrepresent Andrew Moore? Not in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it explicitly stated that he is not an ID supporter, and is an evolutionist:

Moore is not an ID proponent; hes clearly writing from an evolutionary perspective. Even as he describes extensive function in our genome, he frequently adds evolutionary narrative gloss just to remind you what side hes on.

The article continues:

Though clearly evolution-based, Moores perspective stands out in an important way: it is open to seeing coordinated function across the entire genome.

And again:

Moores evolutionary bias is evident here as he repeatedly adds narrative gloss, ascribing functional aspects of our genome to evolution, rather than simply describing the functional nature of DNA and leaving evolution out of it. But the substance of what hes saying identifies function in an aspect of the genome that evolutionists have frequently ignored as junk.

Finally:

So heres what we have: evolutionary scientists proposing that most of our genomes sequence has functional importance because it carries a genomic code, controlling the three-dimensional packing in the nucleus.

The article repeatedly clarified that Andrew Moore is not an ID proponent. We added our own commentary about how the scientific evidence discussed by Moore is better explained by an intelligent design perspective (which has long predicted extensive function for noncoding DNA) than by an evolutionary perspective (which has repeatedly predicted that non-coding DNA was junk).

If Speijer were interested in accurately representing our article, he should at least have recognized that it in no way portrayed Moore as being supportive of ID. Instead, in the same paragraph, heres how Speijer describes our views:

In the famous words of Jacques Monod, biological phenomena can be explained by the interaction of chance and necessity (random occurrences and natural laws). In the eyes of antievolutionists there is no role for chance, and thus they zoomed in on the aspect that (some) junk DNA actually might have important functions. Sad to say, the source of much of the junk DNA is still to be found in chance (think of pseudogenes, repeat sequences, transposons, and viral elements). The second temptation for adherents of intelligent design lies in the fact that the phenomena described can be seen as imposing multilevel constraints (for instance, a sequence has to correctly encode a protein and allow proper chromosomal organization). Logically, the chances of getting sequences that work on both levels seem slimmer. Thus, they would feel empowered to bring back their old chestnut: life is so complicated that it cannot be the result of random processes.

Set to one side Speijers dubious claims that non-coding genetic elements like pseudogenes, repeats, or transposons should be assumed to be useless genetic junk. In Januarywe reportedon a new article inNature Reviews Geneticsarguing that pseudogene function is prematurely dismissed based upon dogma, because Where pseudogenes have been studied directly they are often found to have quantifiable biological roles.The very articlewe reviewed by Andrew Moore recognizes that vast stretches of the genome composed largely of repeat sequences and transposable elements and supposed viral sequences seem to have genome-scale functional roles. Those issues aside, there are many misrepresentations in Spiejers passage about how ID reasoning operates.

Is it true that for ID proponents there is no role for chance, as Speijer claims? Anyone who has read foundational ID books like William Dembskis The Design Inference,or even any of Dembskis popular treatments, will know that ID proponents fully recognize that chance, law, and chance + law are all forces at work in nature. Dembskis explanatory filter has appeared in numerous ID publications and is one of the key logical methods of detecting design. Heres a diagram showing how the filter works:

As seen in the diagram, in this method, chance is a perfectly valid explanation for natural events. Only when neither chance nor necessity can explain a feature, where the feature contains high levels of complexity and shows specification, then do we draw the inference that it was designed.

Stephen Meyers bookSignature in the Cellclearly recognizes the potential role of chance in the origin of life:

[O]ne of Francis Cricks colleagues was the French biologist Jacques Monod. In 1971 he wrote an influential book called Chance and Necessity, extolling the powers of chance variation and lawlike processes of necessity in the history of life. As an example of a chance process, Monod noted how random mutations in the genetic makeup of organisms can explain how variations in populations arise during the process of biological evolution. In Monods shorthand, chance referred to events or processes that produce a range of possible outcomes, each with some probability of occurring. The term necessity, on the other hand, referred to processes or forces that produce a specific outcome with perfect regularity, so that the outcome is necessary or inevitable once some prior conditions have been established.

Passages like that can be found in many ID works. They show that ID proponents like Meyer are well aware of Monods ideas. Do Meyer deny the role of chance? No.

Dembski notes that, as we reason about these different kinds of events, we often engage in a comparative evaluation process that he represents with a schematic he calls the explanatory filter. The filter outlines a method by which scientists (and others) decide among three different types of attributions or explanations-chance, necessity, and intelligent design-based upon the probabilistic features or signatures of various kinds of events. (See Fig. 16.1.) In Chapter 8, I described how Dembski came to recognize that low-probability events by themselves do not necessarily indicate that something other than chance is at work. Improbable events happen all the time and dont necessarily indicate anything other than chance in play-as Dembski had illustrated to me by pointing out that if I flipped a coin one hundred times I would necessarily participate in an extremely improbable event. In that case, any specific sequence that turned up would have a probability of 1 chance in 2100. Yet the improbability of this event did not mean that something other than chance was responsible.

Lets turn to Speijers claim that ID reasons that life is so complicated that it cannot be the result of random processes. Speijer calls this argument an old chestnut and indeed thats what it is: a hoary misrepresentation of ID arguments. We have addressed it numerous times (for example, see here, here, here, here, or here).

First, ID does not merely refute random processes. As Dembskis explanatory filter and the passage from Meyers book show, ID theory evaluates the ability of chance, law, and a combination of chance + law to explain elements of nature.

Second, ID does not begin by navely arguing that life is so complicated ID is inferred only after careful quantitative analyses show that random mutation and natural selection cannot produce a given feature. This is not a simple or nave argument. ID proponents have implemented complex population genetics models (which appropriately incorporate the roles of chance mutation and nonrandom selection) to test the efficacy of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. For some examples from the ID research literature, seehere,here, orhere.

Third, ID is not just a negative argument against material causes. Simply finding that Darwinian mechanisms are unable to produce a feature is not enough to infer design. Intelligent design is inferred only from a positive argument where we find the type of information and complexity in life that is known to derive from an intelligent agent. This type of information is called specified complexity, as Stephen Meyer explains:

[T]he inadequacy of proposed materialistic causes forms only part of the basis of the argument for intelligent design. We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems. To quote Quastler again, The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity. Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity or information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence-intelligent design-played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer-based on our knowledge of established cause-and-effect relationships-that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.

For this reason, the design inference defended here does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an inference to the best explanation based upon our best available knowledge.

This brings us to Speijers fourth mistake: the error in thinking that ID arguments are turned back by examples of supposed poor design. This is another classic:

Here is a concept that was invoked as an explanation after many examples of unintelligent or even downright stupid designs found in living organisms started littering biology books. One might understand why I think it a bit rich that they advocate reasoned explanations under headers such as truth in science, whilst peddling unscientific, untenable positions, using cut and paste distortions.

And exactly what are the unintelligent or downright stupid designs that show life was not designed? Speijer doesnt say. Weve tackled many such arguments over the years, responding to assertions about the poor design of the vertebrate eye, pandas thumb, whale pelvic bones, appendix, coccyx, sinuses, or laryngeal nerve, among others. Brian Miller has explained the general problem with the imperfection-of-the-gaps fallacy, which unscientifically presumes we have near-perfect knowledge of how organisms ought to operate. Another problem with such arguments is that poor design isstill design, as we havepreviously explained:

As a science, ID doesnt address theological questions about whether the design is desirable, undesirable, perfect, or imperfect. Undesirable design is still design. Gilmour just doesnt like it because (in his own subjective view) its undesirable. Heres a quick illustration of what I mean:

Im writing this on a PC using Windows; this PC has crashed probably a dozen times in the past two weeks. Right now, I hate my PC. I consider it poorly designed, full of imperfections, and very undesirable. Does that mean it wasnt designed by intelligent agents? No. Undesirable design and intelligent design are two different things. Undesirable, poor, or imperfect design do not refute intelligent design.

Speijer is critiquing a straw man.

What about the nefarious misdeeds that Speijer accusesEvolution Newsof committing using misquote[s] and cut and paste distortions in pursuit of spreading misinformation, to name a few? Its because of such wrongdoing that he suggests we need to be censored by the government. But consider: Did Speijer accurately represent our article on junk DNA, or did he falsely imply it presented Andrew Moore as a proponent of ID? Did Speijer use cut-and-paste common distortions about ID by saying it argues life is so complicated that it cannot be the result of random processes? Did Speijer spread misinformation or use bad faith reasoning about ID by claiming that it is refuted by unintelligent or downright stupid designs? Oh, and is it consistent for the editorial to call us Bio-Liars who promote creationism in a tuxedo while lamenting the deterioration of public discourse with its dearth of mature participants? Are Speijers criticisms more applicable to ID proponents, or to his own attacks on us?

Speijer has another complaint. Its about a brief article by Paul Nelson here, back in February. Nelson was responding to a short editorial, Is Popperian Falsification Useful in Biology?, that Speijer had written inBioEssays. Here is the offending passage from Nelson:

An open access editorial (whose title I have borrowed for the headline), by the Dutch biologist Dave Speijer, is worth a look in relation to this issue.

[E]volutionary theory, he writes, invites us to tolerate exceptions. I think this is exactly wrong. A theory that predicted the exceptions to its rules and generalizations would convey knowledge. A theory that tolerates exceptions, however, will end up in a 1:1 mapping with whatever one observes in which event, the theory is doing no work at all, simply wandering along behind the data like a puppy on a leash.

Thats the entirety of what Nelson said about Speijer. Was this a misquote? Consider what Speijer originally wrote:

Of course, overall Popper is right. Trying to establish facts that disprove broad theories is a worthwhile strategy, often generating further insights. However, the example above illustrates the problems involved: these only get worse when one turns to the field of biological theory. The complexity of biological entities (highly complicated systems that have many layers of intra and interconnectivity, themselves results of eons of prior development) is such that counterexamples are sometimes not what they seem to be. Allow me to give some examples. Eukaryotes are capable of a complicated system of procreation: full meiotic sex. However, less costly clonal (nonsexual) propagation also occurs. Most instances turn out to be relatively shortlived, but an exception to this rule is found in the bdelloid rotifers, which lost meiotic sex millions of years ago. Does this mean that sex is just something that eukaryotes got stuck with, and that it is lost again as soon as the opportunity arises? Of course not. The exception might inform the rule. Because they live in cyclically drying freshwater habitats, bdelloid rotifers evolved high resistance to reactive oxygen species (ROS) resistance (in their case coming from ionizing radiation more than from the mitochondrion). This might have made the DNA repair mechanisms associated with meiotic sex superfluous.2 What of other exceptions to biological rules? The mitochondrial DNA is practically always inherited from the maternal germ cell. Is that indeed because the active (motile) germ cell (sperm) has more ROSrelated damage, or do a few exceptions disprove this? Highly complex eukaryotic structures are almost always associated with an aerobic lifestyle. Does an instance of anaerobic complexity tell us that this is just a coincidence? In both cases I do not think so. Or take the mitochondrial ROS theory of aging: does the observation that an active lifestyle is conductive to longevity invalidate it? Careful analysis shows this not to be the case. In biology, largely true correlations often give important insights. Thus, at the risk of constructing our own Vulcans to prop up flawed models, evolutionary complexity invites us to tolerate exceptions.

Everyone seems to agree (to some extent) that the predictions of evolutionary biology often meet with counterexamples. Speijer dismisses this as unimportant, simply reflecting the eons of prior development that led to great complexity of biological entities with highly complicated systems that have many layers of intra and interconnectivity. Paul Nelson thinks that these failed predictions ought not to be dismissed, unless you are willing to tolerate a theory that fails to generate useful knowledge.

Nelson made a fair point, if you ask us, but feel free think otherwise. Are the editors ofBioEssaysso afraid of criticism that even very benign disagreement triggers them to call for government-backed censorship?

To be fair, Nelsons original post included a slight misquote of Speijer. It was unintentional, of course, and didnt change the meaning. Speijer spoke of evolutionary complexity rather than evolutionary theory, as Nelson first wrote. Naturally, weve since fixed that. Speijer doesnt mention it, so apparently it wasnt a big deal to him. What is a big deal to Speijer is that Nelson quotes Stephen Jay Gould. Speijer responds:

My concluding remark, regarding biology inviting us to tolerate exceptions, is quoted (without the crucial proviso, however) to just mean anything is possible. Talk about bad faith reasoning. But at least I was trashed together with the late Stephen Jay Gould, so that softened the blow to my ego.

But did Paul Nelson say that Speijer said that under evolutionary biology anything is possible? No, he did not. Rather, he quoted a different scientist commenting on Stephen Jay Gould. Nelson wrote:

Stephen Jay Gould grew very fond of the notion of contingency, which he would deploy to rationalize departures from prediction. If that seems a harsh judgment,consider the last sentence of this article, commenting on Goulds position:

Organisms tend to achieve similar solutions to similar problems, but give it [i.e., evolution] enough time (or a small enough population), and anything is possible.

Anything is possible may be true but then, dont pretend you have a theory which is doing any real work. You dont.

When Nelson cites this article he doesnt link to Speijer. He links toan article by Tiago Rodrigues Simes, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard. Speijer is upset that Nelson quoted another scientist talking about the views of Stephen Jay Gould in an article that also separately critiqued Speijers own views. Thats what all the furor is about. Thats why he was triggered into calling for censorship.

Well, actually theres one other thing that Speijer is angry about and it reduces to the mere fact that Nelson advocates intelligent design:

The Discovery Institute (and its websites) has a tendency of adding insult to injury. To quote from a column which mentions Poppers falsifiability criterion as a way of distinguishing scientific and nonscientific explanations to advance intelligent design is audacious to say the least.

Again, Nelson simply suggested that Poppers thinking should be applied to evolutionary theory. His post doesnt say anything about ID. But of course Nelson is an ID advocate. For Speijer, it seems, the mere fact that Nelson advocates ID means he is guilty of peddling unscientific, untenable positions, using cut and paste distortions. Audacious to some, indeed.

What has Speijer identified in our work that amounts to real misquotes, errors, or bad logic? Nothing. Nelson too was also unable to find anything that he had done wrong. Soon after Speijers editorial was published byBioEssays, Nelson wrote a friendly email to Speijer. Nelson essentially asked,Did I get anything wrong? Lets talk, because if I did I want to correct the record and make it right.

That email was sent well over a month ago. The response to Dr. Nelson from Dr. Speijer? Crickets.

So there you have it. These scientists were triggered bynothing. They erupted in response with demands for persecution. Does this sound to you like a sober, mature, balanced scientific outlook, one that should be dictating government policy on Internet freedom? These are the upholders of orthodox evolutionary theory! These are Darwins modern champions. Paul Nelson said it well in his post: evolutionary biology is not a healthy theory.

Photo credit:christian buehner viaUnsplash.

Originally posted here:

What Triggered a Biology Journal to Demand Government Censorship of Intelligent Design - Discovery Institute

OpEd: Has Disney Taken Censorship Too Far With the Latest Disney+ Blur? – Inside the Magic

Disney+ is getting a bit of a reputation for its strange choice of censorship, and this latest one that weve spotted is perhaps the most bizarre and unnecessary yet.

First seen by a friend of mine (LovelyChubly over on Twitter), this is perhaps the most extreme form of censoring that weve seen Disney use on the service.

It involves actor Maria Canals-Barrera (who plays Theresa Russo in Wizards of Waverly Place), and it seems that Disney has chosen to add some form of strange blurring to the tiniest amount of skin showing in one of her scenes in Wizards of Waverly Place. Now I am not going to do a before and after out of respect for the actor but you can see the blurring in full effect below:

Whats odd is just how bad the blurring looks when watching the episode and how it is used in a few scenes and not in others. If you wanted to check this out for yourselves, you can find it toward the end of season 2 episode 10 of the Wizards of Waverly Place TV show. Disneys decision on this one does appear to be very odd as it wont be impacting the younger audience at all. Additionally, note that these scenes involving Canals-Barrera originally aired on Disney Channel without any form of censoring, so its unclear why Disney made the decision to start censoring the actors appearance now that the episodes are on Disneys streaming service.

Related: The movies and scenes Disney refuses to put on Disney+

Disney has also censored items in other shows and movies that include:

Now I dont know about you guys, but I think it should be up to the paying customer to decide on what they do and dont want to be censored from a show on Disney+?

Why Disney doesnt just introduce a system similar to Netflix that allows for a kids profile to be introduced and controlled by parents is still beyond me. Adults are huge Disney fans and it is crazy that much of the content isnt accessible in its original format.

It would certainly stop the confusion that is happening internally at the company on figuring out what belongs on Disney+ and what belongs on Hulu (remembering that Hulu isnt an option for many of the markets where Disney+ is). We are still unsure if shows like Lizzie McGuire are even coming back due to the adult themes of the shows reboot.

Would you like to see less censorship and more adult choice on the Disney+ streaming platform, providing it was safe for kids? Let us know in the comments below!

Editors Note: The opinions expressed in this OpEd do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Inside the Magic overall.

Follow this link:

OpEd: Has Disney Taken Censorship Too Far With the Latest Disney+ Blur? - Inside the Magic

Does Big Tech censorship ultimately fail, giving more legitimacy to the content it tries to hide? – Reclaim The Net

Although it seems quick and easy to do and get away with, especially when you watch giant tech corporations do it these days censorship might actually be hard to pull off when alls said and done.

The crucial reason, that entrepreneur and YouTube personality Patrick Bet-David explores is this does censorship even work?

Even before the viral capability to spread information on the web came about, regimes struggled to make censored information go away, provoking instead more interest in whats forbidden.

But now, with the network effect, YouTube deleting a video to silence an issue or a person will likely lead to more eyes on it that would have been the case otherwise, he argues.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

Ultimately, censorship doesnt work, Bet-David concludes, because visibility of censored content grows exponentially on social networks, by that very fact increasing the likelihood of the ideas that are suppressed gaining more, not less credibility.

Human nature plays into this as most people are intrinsically and instinctively rebellious, this YouTuber tells his audience of 2.3 million subscribers.

Bet-David brings up two issues that have come up lately as he is putting together and publishing his content: his failed idea to host both Judy Mikovits and her critic, YouTuber know as Dr Mike; and, complaints from Republicans (that apparently surface in comments left on his videos) that their politics and ideology are being denied a voice on social and other media.

(A clip from Mikovits upcoming documentary Plandemic has recently been deleted by YouTube and Facebook as conspiracy; she agreed to a Bet-David hosted YouTube discussion, but Dr Mike canceled after confirming.)

And while censorship is impossible in the US at government-level, he says powerful corporations can and will use it. He describes Democrats as strategic having invested in controlling the narrative to the point of now being capable of controlling the audience and dictating the next 50 years as opposed to Republicans focus on the money without an audience.

Implying that Democrats do in fact own figuratively and/or literally social media platforms and corporate media outlets, Bet-Davids advice to people is to use that money they have to create, or buy, their own platforms.

The next time a media platform censors its going to happen! why dont you go to your party and ask them how come theyre not creating more media platforms, he says.

Link:

Does Big Tech censorship ultimately fail, giving more legitimacy to the content it tries to hide? - Reclaim The Net

People are worried about Disney censoring ‘Hamilton’ when it comes to Disney Plus this July – Insider – INSIDER

Disney announced on May 12 that Broadway sensation "Hamilton" will hit Disney Plus this summer on July 3, over a year in advance of the movie's planned theatrical release date of October 15, 2021. The film, which is professional recording of the stage production edited together from three performances of the show in 2016, features the original cast including Lin-Manuel Miranda, Leslie Odom Jr., and Rene Elise Goldsberry.

The production, which debuted in 2015, follows the life of Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury of the United States. Not only did the show win the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for drama, it also picked up 11 Tony Awards including best musical and direction of a musical. The show is best known for its rap and hip-hop style, which sees depictions of historical figures like Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr engaging in rap battles or dancing their way through the birth of the United States.

Following the announcement, however, people online worried that "Hamilton" would arrive on the streaming platform with some changes to some of its language or content. The show features several instances of explicit language as well as sexual themes and gun violence.

This isn't the first time that censorship has come up in reference to "Hamilton's" Disney deal. The show features several swear words that would jeopardize a PG-13 rating, although it does censor the f-word in songs like "Say No To This" and "The Adams Administration." Kyle Buchanan, a pop culture reporter at The New York Times, tweeted in February 2020 that he had asked Lin-Manuel Miranda about potential censorship of swear words.

At the time, the writer told Buchanan that there were no plans to cut out sections of the show, reportedly saying, "If we have to mute a word here or there to reach the largest audience possible, I'm OK with that, because your kids already have the original language memorized. I don't think we're depriving anyone of anything if we mute an f-bomb here or there to make our rating."

Disney Plus is committed to providing family-friendly content and has historically shuttled more mature programs over to Hulu, which Disney also owns, or censored them on the platform. The company moved a "Love, Simon" spinoff series from Disney Plus to Hulu recently sources told Variety that Disney felt that certain facets of the show like alcohol use and sexual exploration would preclude it from fitting in with Disney Plus' family-friendly fare (the original Love, Simon story is one of queer romance). Disney has also censored content on Disney Plus, including a post-credits scene in "Toy Story 2" and a partially bare butt in the 1984 movie "Splash."

That being said, it's currently unclear as to whether Disney has any plans to censor language or content in "Hamilton." That didn't stop people from taking to Twitter to plead for Disney to not censor.

Others imagined what "Hamilton" would be like if key words or plot elements were made more family-friendly.

Insider has reached out to Disney for comment as to whether it will censor "Hamilton" on Disney Plus.

Go here to see the original:

People are worried about Disney censoring 'Hamilton' when it comes to Disney Plus this July - Insider - INSIDER

Hey, Google, your censorship of ‘Plandemic’ only turned its author’s book into #1 bestseller. Its the Streisand effect, stupid! – RT

ByGuy Birchall, British journalist covering current affairs, politics and free speech issues. Recently published in The Sun and Spiked Online. Follow him on Twitter @guybirchall

The increasingly heavy-handed restrictions used by the likes of Facebook and YouTube are backfiring. Their suppression of Dr Judy Mikovits Plandemic film has simply made her books soar to No. 1 in the bestseller charts.

Attempts by the tech giants of Silicon Valley to stop the spread of misinformation by pulling down a Covid-19 documentary are starting to make the planets botched attempts to contain coronavirus look successful.

There are few certainties in life, and even fewer during these difficult times in which we find ourselves. Although the infamous troublesome twosome of death and taxes are having something of a field day at the moment, the certainty I would like to discuss is the depressingly constant presence of censorship and, specifically, how spectacularly counterproductive it is. This has recently been demonstrated most effectively by Silicon Valleys attempts to stop wrong-thinking people from using their platforms to spread their message.

With all the liberal tolerance we have come to expect from the billionaires of the San Francisco Bay Area, big tech has proved even more censorious than usual since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all started pulling content off their sites or banning certain people from using them in the name of public safety. The latest example of this is the documentary Plandemic. A 23-minute clip of the film appeared on YouTube featuring a scientist of dubious reputation, Dr Judy Mikovits. During the clip, Mikovits makes a number of claims and assertions, suggesting that billionaires are encouraging the spread of Covid-19 in the hope of somehow making money. She also claims that they plan to mandate experimental and poisonous vaccines on the public.

The clip, which showed Dr Mikovits talking with Mikki Willis (a filmmaker and father, according to his credit in the film Im unsure what relevance the latter has, but I digress), racked up millions of views on YouTube and was widely shared on Facebook and other social media. This, in turn, prompted the typical media outrage and fightback. Fact checkers, journalists and YouTubing doctors all moved swiftly to dismiss her claims (in the name of science, not clicks, of course), until finally YouTube and Facebook pulled down the video from their sites, saying it violated their terms of service.

What was the result of the mainstream media and big techs attempts to silence Dr Mikovits for what they perceive as her irresponsibility? Its made her latest book a top 10 best-seller on Amazon (it was briefly at number one earlier this week), putting her tome in the storied company of Michelle Obamas Becoming, Sally Rooneys Normal People(which has just been made into a BBC drama) and the Twilight Saga author Stephenie Meyers latest offering.

It also rocketed straight into third place on the New York Times bestsellers list, sandwiched between Obamas Becoming and Erik Larsons The Splendid and the Vile, a study of Winstons Churchills leadership. And hey Google, guess what? Its in the non-fiction list.

Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science, retailing at $17.91 plus shipping, is now temporarily out of stock, following an enormous surge in demand prompted by the outcry against the banned clip of Plandemic.

No doubt the media and big tech will chalk this one up as a win, because the clip is now unavailable on their platforms, but one imagines the royalties from her spike in book sales will cushion the blow for Dr Mikovits. She certainly seems happy, judging from her tweets. She is also now one of the most famous scientists on the planet and receiving even more coverage (some of which you are reading right now) because her censorship has become the story.

There is a term for this type of occurrence: it is known as the Streisand effect. The name comes from a case back in 2003 where the actress and singer Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman for $50 million to remove an aerial photograph of her California home from his collection of 12,000 publicly available photos documenting coastal erosion in the Golden State. Before the Funny Girl star brought the action, the photograph of her home had been downloaded from Adelmans website six times two of which were by Streisands lawyers. After the case became public, the picture was downloaded more than 420,000 times over the course of a month, and Babs lost the case anyway. Oops.

As surely as what goes up must come down, and as inevitably as a homophobic preacher being caught short surrounded by rent boys and amyl nitrate, censorship of something will always lead to more people looking at it. It is, therefore, not only morally wrong, but as counterproductive as trying to dry out an alcoholic by locking him in a liquor store.

Dr Mikovits isnt the only person whose star has risen thanks to Covid-19 inspired censorship by tech giants. David Icke had barely been mentioned as anything other than a punchline since the mid-1990s, until YouTube pulled his channel when he started sounding off about 5G causing coronavirus.

Outside the realm of Covid-19, InfoWars founder and living, breathing meme Alex Jones became more famous than ever after Silicon Valley unilaterally banned him from every major platform and social network. Outspoken right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos dined out on being too dangerous for Twitter for at least a year before offence archaeologists found an old comment that derailed his career.

Silicon Valley needs to accept that people are going to think, say and post whatever they like and should be allowed to do so on their platforms.

The alternative is that they take the same responsibility for what goes out on their platforms as a publisher does, and face the inevitable libel suits.

The middle ground they are currently inhabiting in order to maximise profits while still pandering to their liberal, globalist, metropolitan agenda is unfair, untenable and disingenuous. It has to stop.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Go here to see the original:

Hey, Google, your censorship of 'Plandemic' only turned its author's book into #1 bestseller. Its the Streisand effect, stupid! - RT

Opinion: Conspiracism is a popular phenomenon; addressing it requires understanding and dialogue rather than censorship – Eastern Echo

The conditions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, including restrictive government policies and a crashing economy, create fertile ground for conspiracy theories. This may be eased by the online nature of socialization and information dissemination.

Ive personally seen way too much mis- and disinformation about the coronavirus on my various social media feeds. Perhaps the most prevalent piece of this is the viral Plandemic video, which had been circulating on Facebook via a Youtube link until the platforms decided to axe the video due to safety concerns.

Much of what was included in the video was an extended interview with Judy Mikovitz, a figure in the anti-vaccination movement who has produced unsubstantiated claims about vaccinations and had a quite rocky career as a researcher and activist. Because a quick Google search can bring up her records and quickly debunk some of the foundational claims in the video, its a bit disheartening that it gained so much popularity.However, while I was on board with them removing the video, I recognize that the videos removal may hurt more than help matters regarding public distrust in elites handling of COVID-19.

Plandemic, or its claim that the pandemic was orchestrated by a malicious government and health department, is one of many conspiracy theories circulating about COVID-19 in this time of uncertainty, but it is not the strongest. The strongest and most circulated theory is about disinfectant, a claim/theory echoed by President Trump himself; this one is so disproportionate that Axios removed it from its data chart in order to show the other theories to scale.

Most experts and sources say that conspiracy theories are appealing because they offer a relatively simplistic and straightforward explanation for things their believers dont - or dont want to - understand. Nuanced explanations are often taxing and, in some cases, boring. This opens the door for people to find explanations with more accessible and convincing appeal, especially if these explanations reinforce their preconceptions.

Conspiracy theories are simply compelling, and a near majority of Americans believe in at least one. An Axios study found that in their nationally representative survey, a majority of respondents claimed to believe in at least one of the 22 conspiracy theories they were prompted with.

J. Eric Oliver and Thomas J. Wood, in an article featured in the American Journal of Political Science titled Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion, found that half of Americans consistently believe in at least one conspiracy theory by analyzing data from four nationally representative surveys between 2006 and 2011. They also found that while some researchers find conspiracism to be a feature of right wing politics, political conservatism, authoritarianism, and political ignorance were not major factors in whether someone endorsed a conspiracy theory. Conspiratorial politics, it turns out, is a widespread tendency across the entire ideological spectrum.

Apart from ideology, these researchers found conspiratorial politics to be driven more by human behavior and belief in the religious or occult. Common characteristics of conspiracies are that unusual phenomena are claimed to arise from intentional, malicious forces, and that mainstream accounts of these phenomena are either a hoax or a distraction. Conspiracy theories also involve an attempt to interpret complex phenomena as a sort of battle between good and evil, where the believers group attachments play a sizable role. This is why partisan conspiracies have such strong appeal and support, although partisanship doesnt necessarily drive conspiratorial beliefs itself.

Conspiratorial politics also arent a result of political naivete or ignorance, as those who tended to be more politically knowledgeable were no less susceptible to their appeal. The strongest predictor of whether one is to believe in a conspiracy is previous conspiratorial ideation, which usually hinges on two psychological phenomena.

The first is that unexplained and complex phenomena tend to be boiled down to more simplistic, intentional, and malicious forces.

The second is that narratives of good versus evil are quite popular in American discourse and are especially present in religious and populist rhetoric.

The inclination towards attributing malicious intention to unexplained phenomena and processing political information as forces of good versus forces of evil, then, explains how Americans are so captured by conspiracism.

These conspiracies thrive with the internet as a tool, but there is no indication that the internet drives the conspiracies themselves. Often, it can place a natural ceiling on the belief in certain conspiracies; such is true with the Kennedy assassination conspiracism.

While coronavirus conspiracy theories arent as popular as theories involving the 1 percent and Jeffrey Epsteins supposed suicide, they may not have reached their ceiling. Those that center on intentional, malicious forces, such as Plandemic, the idea that the virus has been exaggerated to hurt President Trumps chances at reelection, and the idea that the virus was created and spread on purpose as a bioweapon, most likely hold water because they offer simplistic explanations of malicious, intentional forces in an intriguing narrative of good versus evil.

These kinds of conspiracy theories involving public health will likely continue, just as those involving vaccinations and 5G technologies have. In some cases, the internet-sanctioned public debates on these conspiracy theories may present a natural ceiling. In others, actors like Facebook and Youtube may be forced to intervene if their administrators believe conspiracies at this scale pose a threat to public health and safety, potentially fueling more conspiracism.

In any case, attributing malice to those who believe in these theories is mostly unhelpful, especially given the susceptibility of the larger American public to conspiracism. While questioning and assessing these narratives is necessary, demonizing those who hold conspiratorial beliefs is mostly unhelpful; theyre searching for answers, too.

The best way to navigate popular conspiracy theories, then, is to approach it from the understanding that these theories are a mostly natural phenomenon and that people arent necessarily wrong to endorse some of them. They may be factually incorrect, but they are not behaviorally out-of-bounds.

Further, popular conspiracy theories should be approached with the knowledge that public debate itself can put a ceiling on conspiracy theories. Facebook and Youtube may have added fuel to the conspiratorial fire by removing the Plandemic video.

Additionally, the COVID-19 crisis is relatively new, and the trajectory of these theories is still unknown. They may fizzle out, or they may find more fertile ground. Approaching them productively, and with this knowledge of human psychology, can be helpful both to media platforms and the government.

Read more:

Opinion: Conspiracism is a popular phenomenon; addressing it requires understanding and dialogue rather than censorship - Eastern Echo

The pandemic is making digital rights violation in Africa, the new norm – Techpoint.ng

For a continent with a long history of dictatorship and control, the massive freedom afforded by the Internet seems to be irksome for most African governments. As they recognise the importance of the Internet, a number of strong-arm tactics have been employed to control its use.

According to a 2019 report on Digital Rights in Africa by Paradigm Initiative, there has been a sharp contrast between how the Internet is bringing development to Africa and how governments have focused more on control and promoting a climate of fear.

In Africa today, drawing from Chinese and Russian models of Information Controls, the information space is now perceived as a legitimate theatre of conflict much the same way as land, air and the sea are established theatres of conflict, the report states.

Between 2016 and 2019, the governments of several African countries shut down the Internet for political reasons. Sudan, Chad, DRC, Ethiopia, and the Republic of Benin are some of the more prominent examples in 2019.

Advertisement

These events have not come without some costs. As Techpoint reported earlier, the global cost of government-motivated Internet shutdowns was about $8.05 billion in 2019, with sub-Saharan Africa alone accounting for a $2.16 billion loss.

Where shutdowns are not in place, there are usually some forms of legislation passed into law, or going through parliamentary reading to help guide the use of the Internet and mitigate the spread of misinformation.

The Republic of Benin was one of the first in Africa to adopt a law guiding the use of the Internet as the Digital Act adopted by the countrys National Assembly in June 2017 came into force in April 2018.

Earlier this year, Ethiopia also passed its Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation Bill (now an Act) into law, in a bid to curb hate speech and misinformation.

In Nigeria, two bills the hate speech bill and social media bill are currently underreviewin the National Assembly, but it has been met by stiff opposition from various civil societies.

While some reports have indicated that social media and the Internet have led to a massive spread of misinformation and might be affecting democracies negatively, according to Techpoints discussion with Ridwan Oloyede, a cybersecurity and data protection lawyer, this is not a problem that will be solved by Internet censorship or hate speech laws.

The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa has put a lot of strain on its less than stellar medical facilities. With various technologies, however, the process of tracing possibly infected persons could be eased to a large extent.

One of the most popular methods is contact tracing, a process where a contact tracer closely interviews a patient and deduces who else might have been exposed to the virus by the infected person.

Telecommunications technology could also offer a more targeted approach with the use of location history data from the mobile phones of confirmed cases, to help curb the spread of the infection faster.

The location of every mobile phone user could be assembled into a single searchable database that could be back-checked against the location history of infected persons.

This method, in combination with some others, has been used to great success by some countries globally. Without having to resort to a lockdown, South Korea reportedly uses a combination of credit card transaction records, CCTV footage, and cell phone location data to trace and curb the spread of the virus.

In Africa, countries like Rwanda, South Africa, and Kenya have embraced the use of mobile phone location data for contact tracing.

Due to the initial vagueness of South Africas directive on the use of mobile phone tracing, it had to be revised to show what information will be used, how long it will be used for, and if it will continue after the pandemic.

While this seems like a brilliant initiative, the obvious implication is that governments have access to their citizens information and locations, raising a number of privacy issues in the process.

While most legislations allow for tough measures in cases of emergencies, so far, there has been scepticism from bodies such as the Paradigm Initiative and Privacy International, regarding the enforcement of such measures. This could be linked to the fact that other instances of surveillance or censorship are usually cloaked with something positive.

Based on recent events since the lockdown of most African countries, these fears are not without merit.

In the Republic of Niger, Kaka Touda Mamane Goni, a journalist who publishes news reports on Twitter and Facebook, was arrested by authorities, for releasing information about a COVID-19 patient.

In Kenya, which has already adopted mobile phone tracing, Elijah Muthui Kitonyo was arrested for spreading misleading information on Twitter about the whereabouts of a COVID-19 patient in Kenya.

Another adopter of mobile phone tracing, South Africa, has also introduced a law that criminalises the spread of misinformation about COVID-19, a scenario that could lead to a six-month prison sentence, in addition to a fine.

While emergency technology measures might be useful to tackle COVID-19 to a large extent, the continent needs to really take human and digital rights into consideration during and after the pandemic.

Nigerian startups raised $55.4m in Q1 2020;over 99% of which came from foreign sources. Find out more when you download the full report.

Subscribe to the Techpoint Africa Newsletter for weekly updates

Related

View original post here:

The pandemic is making digital rights violation in Africa, the new norm - Techpoint.ng

YouTube bans content that contradicts WHO on Covid-19, despite its track record of misinformation – MercatorNet

YouTubers are being silenced if they dont agree with the United Nations on public health. AsThe Verdictreports:

YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations, according to CEO Susan Wojcicki.

Wojcicki announced the policy on CNN on Sunday. WHO is an agency of the UN, charged with overseeing global public health. The Verdict report continues:

Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform would be removing information that is problematic. She told host Brian Stelter that this would include anything that is medically unsubstantiated.

So people saying take vitamin C; take turmeric, well cure you, those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy, she said. Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.

While the decision has been welcomed by many, some have accused the streaming giant of censorship.

To be clear, for American YouTubers, this kind of censorship is not a violation of their constitutional right of free speech. The First Amendment protects citizens againstgovernmentcensorship, and YouTube is a private platform. Were the US government to force the private owners of YouTube to continue broadcasting certain videos against their will,thatwould be much more a violation of the First Amendment.

While YouTubes decision is not unconstitutional, it is unwise, exhibiting far too much deference to central authority in general and to WHO especially.

The World Health Organization is far from infallible. Its handling of information throughout the coronavirus emergency has been a long string of failures. As policy analyst Ross Marchand has recounted here onFEElast week, WHO failed to raise the alarm as the coronavirus rapidly spread through China during the crucial early period of the global crisis in January of this year. Then, as Marchand wrote:

The global bureaucracyuncritically reportedthat Chinese authorities had seen no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus on January 14, just one day afteracknowledgingthe first case outside of China (in Thailand). WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom GhebreyesuspraisedChinese President Xi Jinping for his political commitment and political leadership despite these repeated, reprehensible attempts to keep the world in the dark about the coronavirus.

President Donald Trump recently announced that the US would cease itsfundingof WHO over its many coronavirus-related failures.

And it is not just American conservatives who have been critical. AsFEEs Jon Miltimorewrote:

Our World in Data, an online publication based at the University of Oxford,announcedon Tuesday that it had stopped relying on World Health Organization (WHO) data for its models, citing errors and other factors.

This raises an interesting question: would YouTube censor Oxford if it posted a video on the coronavirus issue with recommendations based on data that contradicts WHOs?

As Miltimore wrote, Recent reports suggest US intelligence agenciesrelied heavilyon WHO in its national assessment of the COVID-19 threat.

This is gravely concerning because bad information leads to bad policies. This is true not only for government policy (like mayors, governors, and heads of state deciding to largely shut down the economy in their jurisdiction), but for the policies of private decision-makers like doctors, business-owners, and individuals making decisions about the health and overall lives of themselves and their families.

Indeed, WHOs misinformation early in the crisis squandered the most precious part of the worlds prep time, which likely crippled the publics responses and may have cost many lives.

YouTube risks compounding that tragedy by now insisting that the publics response to the coronavirus emergency conforms even more strictly with WHOs dubious pronouncements. Wojcicki wants to protect WHOs recommendations from contradiction. But WHOs recommendations are necessarily informed by WHOs information, which has proven to be extremely suspect. Sheltering untrustworthy pronouncements risks amplifying their dangerous influence.

So, it is ironic that YouTube justifies this policy in the name of protecting the public from dangerous misinformation.

It is true that many videos contradicting official pronouncements are themselves full of medical quackery and other misleading falsehoods. But, censorship is the worst way to combat them.

For one, censorship can actually boost the perceived credibility of an untruth. Believers interpret it as validation: evidence that they are onto a truth that is feared by the powers-that-be. And they use that interpretation as a powerful selling point in their underground evangelism.

Censorship also insulates falsehoods from debunking, allowing them to circulate largely uncriticized in the dark corners of public discourse.

This makes censorship especially counterproductive because it is open-air debunking that is one of the most effective ways to counter misinformation and bad ideas. As Justice Louis Brandeis expressed in a US Supreme Courtopinion, the ideal remedy for bad speech, is more speech, not enforced silence.

Again, YouTube has a right to set the terms of service of its own website. But the general principle applies here as well: the truth has a much better fighting chance with a proliferation of competing voices than with inquisitorial efforts to circumscribe discourse within a narrow orthodoxy.

Moreover, WHOs track record of misinformation is not exceptional among government organizations in neither its degree of error nor in its disastrous impact. Governments and the experts they employ not only get things wrong but have frequently proven to be fundamentally wrong-headed on big questions.

To take another example in the realm of public health, it is increasinglywidely recognizedthat the high-carb, low-fat diet recommendations, as depicted by the the USDAs Food Pyramid, and successfully promoted for decades to the population by the US government and the most respected authorities on dietary science and epidemiology, was basically backward. Science journalist Gary Taub tells the whole story of bad science, corrupt influence, and obtuse orthodoxy in his bookGood Calories, Bad Calories.

Again, bad information leads to bad advice which leads to bad choices. So how much illness and even death was caused by generations of Americans uncritically swallowing official diet advice and by Americans largely only having one choice on the menu of diet advice?

The more we centralize decision-making and the management of actionable information, the wider the scope of the damage caused by any single error. But if we let a thousand errors bloom along with a thousand truths, any single error will be circumscribed in its damage and more likely to be corrected through experience and counter-argument.

Champions of policies like YouTubes like to cast the issue in simplistic terms: as a black-and-white battle between respectable experts and wild-eyed crackpots. But the issue is more complex than that.

It is just as often a matter of overweening technocrats making pronouncements on matters that are way beyond them in complexity, that involve factors that fall way outside their domain of expertise, and that drastically impact the lives of millions or even billions. For example: a few dozen epidemiologists, with limited understanding of economics and a great many other relevant disciplines, holding sway over whole economies.

It is also a matter ofdissentingexperts being silenced along with the actual crackpots.

And, perhaps most fundamentally, it is a matter of weakening the individuals ability to discern between truth and falsehood, good advice and bad, by denying them the responsibility and practice of doing so in the first placeof turning self-reliant, free men and women into irresponsible wards to be led by the nose like dumb, deferential livestock by their expert caretakers.

That is not where we are, but that is the direction that the rigid enforcement of centralized orthodoxies tends toward.

Lets choose a different direction. YouTube, do better. Trust your users more. Treat them like human beings with all the capacities for learning, growth, discourse, and cooperation that are the distinctive glories of being human.

After all, that is what made you great in the first place. Your very name is derived from your original faith in the individual.YouTube (a crowd-sourced, individual-driven, pluralistic platform) is what made theboobtube (centralized, institutionalized, and homogenizing broadcast television) largely obsolete. As such, you had a starring role in the internets democratization of information and learning.

Dont betray that legacy. Not now. Not when we need open platforms for the free flow of information and discourse more than ever.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. It has been republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Read more from the original source:

YouTube bans content that contradicts WHO on Covid-19, despite its track record of misinformation - MercatorNet

Embedded in the community: Outstanding physics student is a third-generation ASU student – ASU Now

May 18, 2020

Editor's note:This story is part of a series of profiles ofnotable spring 2020 graduates.

Weighing the pros and cons, considering multiple variables, and a little bit of faith all roll into deciding where to pursue higher education. Fortunately for Department of Physics graduate Tanner Wolfram, the choice was simple. Wolfram enjoyed many travel opportunities during his undergraduate years. Photo courtesy of Tanner Wolfram. Download Full Image

An award-winning and published student, Wolfram is part of the third generation in his family to graduate from Arizona State University.

My family came to ASU forever, Wolfram said. My grandmother came here when I think it was still called Arizona State College. My mom went here, all of her sisters, my dad, and I think one of his siblings.

With such a rich history in his own family, Wolfram has had a front-row seat on ASU's evolution through decades of family stories.

My grandmother talks about how the original Palm Walk used to be different; she called it a small school, he said.

Patricia Reagan, Wolframs maternal grandmother, attended Arizona State College in 1953, before the 1958 vote to change the school name to the one we are used to today. And, in the past 60 years, that small school has sky-rocketed to a sprawling, innovative New American University with nearly 120,000 students spread across four campuses and several locations.

Thats one of the coolest things for me to see, maybe, being here just a little longer than a lot of students, said Wolfram. I got to see so many new buildings and so many new research areas develop here at ASU. To hear about them through emails, and things from the campus, and just to hear about all the progressions ASU is making, thats pretty cool."

Through family involvement in campus activities over the years, Wolfram saw the Tempe campus shift and evolve through his parents' eyes, listening to their stories and commentary on changes and new elements. Both his parents graduated from ASU in 1984.

When asked which changes seemed most remarkable, Wolframs father, Scott Wolfram, said, The addition of the whole science complex with Biodesign, theSchool of Earth and Space Explorationand then the addition of Barrett.

I think the new architectural designs are really beautiful. I also love the plant life that accents the campus, said Wolframs mother, Deborah Estrada. Im also really pleased that there are many places for the students to eat and hang out.

Wolframs earliest memory of ASU is of walking around the Tempe campus with his mother, who brought him to see the sights and also to participate in various campus activities for children, from bowling to violin lessons.

My mom says that the first thing I did at ASU was be part of the psychology child study lab. Obviously, I dont remember this, since I was something like 3 or 4, he said.

Wolfram remembers spending plenty of time in the Bateman Physical Sciences Center during events like ASUs Open Door, and Earth and Space Exploration Day. Fitting, then, that this is the building where he would spend so much time as a physics student.

Wolfram enjoys a broad range of interests and passions and loves to learn. In addition to school and community activities, both at ASU and otherwise, he grew up watching the Science Channel. As time went on and people started asking him what he wanted to do after graduation, he noticed a definite pattern in his favorite shows programs like Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Star Talk" and "How the Universe Works" heavily featured expert guests to explore varying topics.

I kept seeing their titles: astrophysicist, astrophysicist, Wolfram said.

He started as an astrophysics major, but soon switched to physics, not wanting to specialize too early.

I think that is the key, I really wanted a big foundation in physics, he said.

This foundation would help keep his options open and give him the freedom to explore his varied interests without the pressure of locking into a lifelong career path.

Wolfram likes options and has many interests besides his love of physics. In addition to his physics coursework, he enjoyed a wide range of extracurricular activities and completed two foreign language minors, Spanish and Chinese, and participated in a study abroad program in China.

He is very interested in politics, language, learning about new cultures and international relations. His many travel opportunities during his undergraduate years gave him insight, perspective and new experiences that he cant wait to take with him into whatever life holds in store next.

Building his solid foundation in physics, Wolfram also found new interests in his major. One of his favorite subjects, and perhaps his proudest accomplishment, was completing the full undergraduate quantum coursework including acing the notoriously difficult Quantum Physics III.

That one I worked really hard for, he said. It was a hard class. It was areallyhard class. The tests are very challenging; its very demanding. Im glad in the end that I had done enough to get the A.

Despite the level of difficulty, or perhaps because of it, Wolfram found he quite enjoyed abstract and theoretical topics.

Ive always liked things that are a little abstract, a little not-so-here, not so physical, he said. Problems and questions often stayed on his mind for weeks afterward.

I think I like the thinking side of it, he said. Just kind of sit with myself and ponder. You know, probably those were my favorite classes.

He also appreciated the close friendships formed with his classmates, as they all took on such challenging courses together.

I have to say, I really like the department here, thats a really big thing, said Wolfram.

It was a lot of fun because we would all be in the same classes. You know, we worked together, we generally studied together, so that was always fun, and kept things very interesting learning things with them and from them. That was one of the things I really liked about ASU.

Wolfram is currently considering graduate programs. Is there a chance he will end up moving into astrophysics, the topic that launched his undergraduate journey? Perhaps. He certainly hasnt lost his curiosity about the universe.

When asked what project he would tackle if suddenly gifted $40 million, he said he would devote it to furthering space exploration.

My personal viewpoint is that we have a lot of time (hopefully) here on Earth, but I think we should also spend part of that time trying to explore farther out, try to make new worlds, and new things, he said.

Thats probably way far in the distant future, he said. But if thats something I could have helped work on, getting people to different worlds even if I only contributed a little, minor thing that would be interesting.

More:

Embedded in the community: Outstanding physics student is a third-generation ASU student - ASU Now

Peter Brancazio, Who Explored the Physics of Sports, Dies at 81 – The New York Times

This obituary is part of a series about people who have died in the coronavirus pandemic. Read about others here.

Peter J. Brancazio, a physics professor who debunked concepts like the rising fastball (physically impossible) and Michael Jordans apparently endless hang time (much shorter than fans believed), died on April 25 in Manhasset, N.Y. He was 81.

The cause was complications of the novel coronavirus, his son Larry said.

Professor Brancazio, who taught at Brooklyn College for more than 30 years, was one of a small number of sports-minded physicists whose research anticipated the use of the advanced statistics that are now accessible through computerized tracking technology. His work, which he began in the 1980s, was filled with terms like launching angle (how high a ball is hit, in degrees) and spin rate (the measurement of a pitch in revolutions per minute) that are now part of baseballs lingua franca. (Launch angle, not launching angle, is the term now widely used.)

Although he was obsessed with basketball, Professor Brancazio was best known for what he had to say about baseball, notably his explanation that a so-called rising fastball could not rise even if pitches thrown by fireballers like Nolan Ryan had seemingly been doing that for decades.

The rising fastball is an illusion, Professor Brancazio told The Kansas City Star in 1987.

Gravity, he said, makes everything fall, even baseballs, and no one can throw one fast enough and with enough spin to overcome gravitys natural force. The rising fastball just looks as if its rising, he said. Its really just not dropping as far as a typical fastball.

A fastball thrown at 90 miles per hour and 1,800 revolutions per minute would drop three feet when it reached home plate, he said. But a fastball that is thrown with still more backspin will fall only two and a half feet, a six-inch difference that creates the illusion of rising.

Professor Brancazio, whose tools included a calculator and a TRS-80 computer, wrote about his research in professional journals; in magazines like Popular Mechanics; and in the 1984 book Sport Science: Physical Laws and Optimum Performance.

Several fans were asked during the segment to guess how long Jordan seemed to hang in the air. Their guesses ranged from six to 10 seconds.

No, Professor Brancazio, said. Even Jordan was subject to gravity. His hang time was only 0.9 seconds.

Later that year, Professor Brancazio elaborated on the physics of hang time for Popular Mechanics. In an article about the science of slam dunks, he devised a formula that determined that a 36-inch vertical leap would equal hang time of 0.87 seconds and that a four-foot vertical leap would equal one second.

No small part of Jordans greatness is the fact that he seems to cover enormous horizontal distances in the air, Professor Brancazio wrote. He accentuates this illusion by releasing his shots on the way down, rather than at the peak of his trajectory.

Peter John Brancazio was born on March 22, 1939, in the Astoria section of Queens. His mother, Ann (Salomone) Brancazio, was an actuarial worker for The Hartford, an insurance company. His father, also named Peter, sorted mail for the Post Office.

When Professor Brancazio and his future wife, Ronnie Kramer, were dating as teenagers, she gave him a gift that would help guide him in his professional life: a telescope. It made him want to study astronomy, she said.

After graduating with a bachelors degree in engineering science from New York University in 1959, he Brancazio earned a masters in nuclear engineering from Columbia University a year later. He began teaching physics at Brooklyn College in 1963 while working toward a Ph.D. in astrophysics from N.Y.U.

During his 34 years at Brooklyn College, he was also a director of the colleges observatory.

Professor Brancazio wrote his first sports article, about basketball, for The American Journal of Physics in 1981. In it, he calculated the optimum launching angles for shots from various distances on the floor.

Having distilled the lessons of shooting on the schoolyards of Astoria, he found that a ball was best launched at an angle of 45 degrees, plus half the angle of the incline from the shooters hand to the front of the rim of the basket, or about 50 to 55 degrees.

He had, he admitted, a personal reason for writing the paper.

In truth, he wrote, the major purpose of this research was to find some means to compensate for the authors stature (5 10 in sneakers), inability to leap more than eight inches off the floor, and advancing age.

His intellectual detour into baseball, basketball and other sports enlivened his classes and made him part of a small group of physicists who brought science to sports, among them the Yale professor Robert Adair, who wrote the 1990 book The Physics of Baseball.

Michael Lisa, a professor of physics at the Ohio State University, said that when he did the research for his 2016 book The Physics of Sports, Professor Brancazios book had been an inspiration. His book is a favorite among physicists for its clear, accurate treatment, Professor Lisa said. d.

Professor Brancazio had no doubt that the people he most wanted to impress athletes would disdain his research. And he knew why, or at least why they did in the era before advanced training techniques transformed athletic achievement.

Larry Bird does not need to be told to release his shots at the optimum launching angle, he wrote in The American Journal of Physics in 1988, nor does Dwight Gooden have to understand the Magnus effect in order to throw a devastating curveball.

Professor Brancazio retired from Brooklyn College in 1997 and then briefly taught adult education courses there and at Queens College. He lectured on science, religion and astronomy at Hutton House, part of Long Island University, from 1999 until last year.

In addition to his wife and his son Larry, Professor Brancazio is survived by another son, David, and five grandchildren.

Professor Brancazio became a sought-after physicist in the news media when sports met science. During Game 1 of the 1991 World Series, for instance, CBS introduced SuperVision, a computerized animation of the path and speed of pitches. One pitch, by Jack Morris of the Minnesota Twins, clocked in at 94 miles per hour when it left his right hand and was the same speed when it landed in the catchers mitt.

CBSs analysts were impressed. But when asked a day later, Professor Brancazio said that a ball could not maintain the same speed on its path of 60 feet 6 inches.

The ball has to slow down by air resistance, he told The New York Times in 1991. No way it can maintain speed or pick up speed. It should lose 9 percent of its speed along the way.

The inventor of SuperVision acknowledged the error, saying that the speeds had probably been rounded off the ball might have left Morriss hand at 94.4 m.p.h. but had landed at 93.6.

A pitch that maintained its speed, it turned out, was as magical as a rising fastball.

Here is the original post:

Peter Brancazio, Who Explored the Physics of Sports, Dies at 81 - The New York Times

Scientists have discovered a star that is almost as old as the Universe, is in its last stages of life – Firstpost

FP TrendingMay 19, 2020 16:07:42 IST

A team of scientists has discovered a star that is nearly as old as the universe.

The study, which was published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters, says that the star has already reached the last stages of its life.

According to a report in Science Alert, the red giant star named SMSS J160540.18144323.1 was found to have the lowest iron levels of any star yet analysed in the galaxy.

The report mentioned astronomer Thomas Nordlander of the ARC Centre of Excellence for All-Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions and the Australian National University as saying that the anaemic star likely formed just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. He added that the star has iron levels 1.5 million times lower than that of the Sun.

The formation of a star during the early Universe. Image Credit: Wise, Abel, Kaehler (KIPAC/SLAC)

Nordlander said the low iron levels indicate that the star is extremely old, as the very early Universe had no metals at all. The first stars were primarily made up of hydrogen and helium.

As per a report in Science News, the spectroscopic analysis showed the star had an iron content of just one part per 50 billion, which according to Nordlander is like one drop of water in an Olympic swimming pool.

The report added that the exploding star was just 10 times more massive than the Sun. It had exploded so feebly that the heavy elements had fallen back on the remnant neutron star itself.

Only a very small amount of newly-formed iron escaped the fallen star's gravity and went on to form a new star one of the first-second generation stars that has now been discovered.

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

Go here to read the rest:

Scientists have discovered a star that is almost as old as the Universe, is in its last stages of life - Firstpost

Russian Astrophysicists Trace Neutrinos Mysterious Ghost Particles From Where No One Had Expected – SciTechDaily

The Russian RATAN-600 telescope helps to understand the origin of cosmic neutrinos. Credit: Daria Sokol/MIPT Press Office

Russian researchers trace high-energy neutrino origins to black holes in far-off quasars.

Russian astrophysicists have come close to solving the mystery of where high-energy neutrinos come from in space. The team compared the data on the elusive particles gathered by the Antarctic neutrino observatory IceCube and on long electromagnetic waves measured by radio telescopes. Cosmic neutrinos turned out to be linked to flares at the centers of distant active galaxies, which are believed to host supermassive black holes. As matter falls toward the black hole, some of it is accelerated and ejected into space, giving rise to neutrinos that then coast along through the universe at nearly thespeed of light.

The study was published on May 12, 2020, in the Astrophysical Journal.

Neutrinos are mysterious particles so tiny that researchers do not even know their mass. They pass effortlessly through objects, people, and even entire planets. High-energy neutrinos are created when protons accelerate to nearly the speed of light.

The Russian astrophysicists focused on the origins of ultra-high-energy neutrinos, at 200 trillion electron volts or more. The team compared the measurements of the IceCube facility, buried inthe Antarctic ice, with a large number of radio observations. Theelusive particles were found toemerge during radio frequency flares at the centers of quasars.

Quasars are sources of radiation at the centers of some galaxies. They are comprised by amassive black hole that consumes matter floating in a disk around it and spews out extremely powerful jets of ultrahot gas.

Our findings indicate that high-energy neutrinos are born in active galactic nuclei, particularly during radio flares. Since both the neutrinos and the radio waves travel at the speed of light, they reach the Earth simultaneously, said the studys first author Alexander Plavin.

Plavin is a PhD student at Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences(RAS) and the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. As such, he is one of the few young researchers to obtain results of that caliber at the outset of their scientific career.

After analyzing around 50 neutrino events detected by IceCube, the team showed that these particles come from bright quasars seen by a network of radio telescopes around the planet. The network uses the most precise method of observing distant objects in the radio band: very long baseline interferometry. This method enables assembling a giant telescope by placing many antennas across the globe. Among the largest elements of this network is the 100-meter telescope of the Max Planck Society in Effelsberg.

Additionally, theteam hypothesized that the neutrinos emerged during radio flares. To test this idea, the physicists studied the data of the Russian RATAN-600 radio telescope in the North Caucasus. The hypothesis proved highly plausible despite the common assumption that high-energy neutrinos are supposed to originate together with gamma rays.

Previous research on high-energy neutrino origins had sought their source right under the spotlight. We thought we would test an unconventional idea, with little hope of success. But we got lucky! Yuri Kovalev from Lebedev Institute, MIPT, and the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy commented. The data from years of observations on international radio telescope arrays enabled that very exciting finding, and the radio band turned out to be crucial in pinning down neutrino origins.

At first the results seemed too good to be true, but after carefully reanalyzing the data, we confirmed that the neutrino events were clearly associated with the signals picked up by radio telescopes, Sergey Troitsky from the Institute for Nuclear Research of RAS added. We checked that association based on the data of yearslong observations of the RATAN telescope of the RAS Special Astrophysical Observatory, and the probability of the results being random is only 0.2%. This is quite a success for neutrino astrophysics, and our discovery now calls for theoretical explanations.

The team intends to recheck the findings and figure out the mechanism behind the neutrino origins in quasars using the data from Baikal-GVD, an underwater neutrino detector in Lake Baikal, which is in the final stages of construction and already partly operational. The so-called Cherenkov detectors, used to spot neutrinos including IceCube and Baikal-GVD rely on alarge mass of water or ice as a means of both maximizing the number of neutrino events and preventing the sensors from accidental firing. Of course, continued observations of distant galaxies with radio telescopes are equally crucial to this task.

Reference: Observational Evidence for the Origin of High-energy Neutrinos in Parsec-scale Nuclei of Radio-bright Active Galaxies by Alexander Plavin, Yuri Y. Kovalev, Yuri A. Kovalev and Sergey Troitsky, 12 May 2020, The Astrophysical Journal.DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86bdarXiv: 2001.00930

Original post:

Russian Astrophysicists Trace Neutrinos Mysterious Ghost Particles From Where No One Had Expected - SciTechDaily