Yesterday there was a conversation that contained several blatantly anti-vax comments. I had previously included in the community description a rule against anti-vax posts and comments, but I was not enforcing it well. I will be enforcing that rule going forward. I have also included a new rule against personal attacks. Please remember to report violations.

If anti-vaxxers wish to have a discussion, they are free to create their own community. This community is not a home for that sentiment.

  • pingvenoOPM
    3·
    3 years ago

    I will not be changing this decision. To respond to your points:

    For one, many people who joined lemmy, the federated reddit alternative, joined it because reddit often censors allowing existence of alternative narratives to be known, even when it is well reasoned and evidence backed.

    That has not stopped individual communities from having their own moderation policies.

    Second, lemmy is socialist/commumist in ideology, while risky vaccines are backed by big pharma.

    This is just an ad hominem. Vaccines are widely accepted by the scientific community as an essential public safety tool. The problems with big pharma are really, but that’s not a good excuse to smear vaccines. Also, characterization of them as “risky” is misleading. There is some extraordinarily small risk, but the risk from COVID to someone who is unvaccinated massively outweighs that risk.

    Third, in this pandemic, often the authorities are as ill-informed as the public and literally doing anything to give a semblence of control over the situation.

    There is no rule against criticizing the actions of authorities in this community.

    Fourth, side-effects like myocarditis, were initially ignored by public at large, their reporting prohibited by authorities and social media alike, in the name of stopping the “anti-vaxxers”.

    Research about the myocarditis side effect first came out in May 2021, right about when there were more young men getting their second dose (this is the primary trigger). I’m not sure what prohibitions there were around this, so I can’t really speak to that aspect.

    To summarise, please reconsider your editorial position. Science proceeds by answering those who question it, not by censoring them.

    The thread that this was posted in response to had a large amount of egregious misinformation. It had gone far beyond asking questions. I’m not going to target people who are looking at emerging issues, but I will absolutely remove long debunked claims.