Since when has it been OK to post lies and disinformation on this website?

Lcaramellokoala on 21/09/2021 - 14:40
Last edited 21/09/2021 - 16:59

Ozbargain Mods,

There is a concerted and increasing effort from a minority to spread misinformation, discord, and political trolling on this site. The people who participate in promotion of COVID denial/minimalism are not interested in honest debate on this site. They’re interested in undermining people’s faith in medical science and competent medical experts. Australia is experiencing the severe effects of a COVID Delta wave which is unlike any disease the country has experienced before.

The moderators on this site are standing on the sidelines while these people pour onto the site with comments "COVID is just the flu", "The government is trying to control you" and “vaccines don't work!” or any other number of other unproven lies. Are we honestly supposed to debate this with these people?

The failure to act by OZbargain mods on these posts/comments, the mods are effectively saying: We are ok with our site hosting dangerous disinformation that could lead to the death of more people. In the name of what are you doing this exactly?

this lack of action is embarrassing, and disgusting. Worse yet? It seems you don’t care if people die because of it.

Edit: to the people saying good luck censoring the internet. Most major social media platforms already do moderate COVID misinformation. But apparently this is website is some kind bastion of 'muh free speech'

Site Discussion

Comments

  • Xistn on 21/09/2021 - 14:41
    +17

    Oh boy…..

    • SF3 on 21/09/2021 - 17:50
      +1

      I think the chocolate melted and caramel is oozing out.

      • Xistn on 22/09/2021 - 07:54
        +2

        30 seconds too long in the microwave….

    • Scrooge McDuck on 21/09/2021 - 18:02
      +19

      OP:

      The people who participate in promotion of COVID denial/minimalism are not interested in honest debate on this site.

      Also OP:

      Are we honestly supposed to debate this with these people?

      • SF3 on 21/09/2021 - 18:11
        +3

        rather ironic?

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 21/09/2021 - 14:45
    +56

    COME ON DOWN TO PITCH FORK EMPORIUM
    WE GOT 'EM ALL!

    Traditional —-E
    Left Handed Ǝ—-
    Fancy —-{

    WE EVEN HAVE DISCOUNTED CLEARANCE FORKS!

    33% off! —-F
    66% off!—-L
    Manufacturer's Defect! —-e

    NEW IN STOCK. DIRECTLY FROM LIECHTENSTEIN. EUROPEAN MODELS!

    The Euro —-€
    The Pound —-£
    The Lira —-₤

    • Xistn on 21/09/2021 - 14:45
      +2

      I demand to sp33k to your Supervisor!

    • psyren89 on 21/09/2021 - 15:35
      +1

      Post of the year.

      • Quantumcat on 21/09/2021 - 16:42
        +7

        It's not original. I've seen it a couple of times.

        • SF3 on 21/09/2021 - 16:48
          +1

          Outrage keeps repeating too.

    • bdl on 21/09/2021 - 15:40
      +3

      hellojim2021

      • SF3 on 21/09/2021 - 18:13
        +1

        Vote 1 for President of the pitch fork foundation.

    • brendanm on 21/09/2021 - 18:56
      +2

      I'll take 1 fancy please.

  • isthatallyougot on 21/09/2021 - 14:48
    +10

    I welcome the Anti Vaxx BS. They just keep spouting their BS and they get smashed down by the OZbargainers with common sense.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 21/09/2021 - 15:03
      +4

      I welcome the Anti Vaxx BS.

      Looking to Reddit for our first Ozbargain Herman Cain nominees.

    • SBOB on 21/09/2021 - 17:26

      OZbargainers with common sense.

      you mean those paid to rebut anti covid posts right :)
      I keep getting told im on some payroll whenever i point out the stupidity of some 'facts' that are posted
      I assume the cheque is in the mail.

      • Ughhh on 21/09/2021 - 18:00
        +2

        I've told one that I was paid $100k to sneeze and lay in covid hospital, pretending to be a patient. He actually believes it, whatever fits their narrative.

      • deme on 21/09/2021 - 22:45

        You don't ozbargain while at work?

  • ozhunter on 21/09/2021 - 14:48
    +7

    Lol, the mods already made the covid19 forums members only to appease people like you, https://www.ozbargain.com.au/forum/180987

    • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2021 - 15:01
      +4

      That shit doesn't even belong here, they need to piss off back to Facebook and LinkedIn

      • ozhunter on 21/09/2021 - 15:03
        +6

        Nah, it's fine here.

        • jv on 23/09/2021 - 14:22
          +1

          gab

          new word for LOL ???

          hahahahahahahahahahahaha…

  • Bafranz on 21/09/2021 - 14:51
    +10

    They call me caramello..

    Koala

  • Hithere on 21/09/2021 - 14:58
    +8

    It's the Internet OP, anyone who takes anything posted on the Internet with more than a grain of salt should get their tin foil hat out and lock themself in a padded cell.

    Don't feed the trolls.

    https://ibb.co/z7HMhLs

  • GS9891 on 21/09/2021 - 15:03
    +11

    faith in medical science

    Remember to keep your religious faith in LE SCIENCE, no heresy or questions allowed, the scientific method is anti-science so stick to the dogma unless the media pre-approves any new thoughts for you (like the lab leak 'conspiracy' which was banned on every major platform until the media said it's actually just dandy).

      • AdosHouse on 21/09/2021 - 15:37
        +2

        "Or are you saying you only hate parts of Science when it suits you?"

        Bit like religious people with their "holy books".

      • GS9891 on 21/09/2021 - 15:49
        +14

        the scientific method is anti-science

        Whoosh

        tl;dr for those with no reading comprehension: Your religious fanaticism in enforcing your 'scientific' truth by banning any no-no opinions is the exact opposite of what the actual scientific method espouses (namely continual investigation and verification), and has already been seen here with the very plausible lab-leak theory most all social media platforms were only too happy to ban until they couldn't any longer.

        • gimli on 22/09/2021 - 14:47

          Whoosh
          for those with no reading comprehension

          Dude in all fairness what you wrote may have been well written but it was not easy to understand. Yeah sure I am stupid but it it is still nice to understand what people are saying so thanks for the explaination.

          • Ughhh on 22/09/2021 - 17:47

            @gimli:

            what you wrote may have been well written but it was not easy to understand.

            There's only 1 full stop in each of his long comments. 3 times the amount of words in an average sentence. Not well written if you have to explain what you wrote to your audience.

            • iCandy on 23/09/2021 - 14:28

              @Ughhh: You should never start a sentence with an Arabic number. That’s basic knowledge.

    • deme on 21/09/2021 - 22:49
      +6

      Why the negs?
      They are saying people ignore the scientific method and instead say believe in science.

      They aren't saying covid is made up, or even to ignore scientific consensus but how sheepishly people follow the media.

      I'd wager they are fully vaccinated and would encourage you to as well.

      • gimli on 22/09/2021 - 14:24

        I negged them because i couldn't understand what they were saying

  • Drakesy on 21/09/2021 - 15:04

    For a second i thought this was a post by Hellopam
    Then i realised that Hellopam would be the one on the anti-vaxxer's side.

    • djkelly69 on 21/09/2021 - 15:25

      Not sure about anti-vax, but I am sure she posted that she wasn't happy she could only get AZ as she wanted Pfizer.

      • Drakesy on 21/09/2021 - 16:38

        I do remember that now

        I guess she's never satisfied.

        • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 16:44

          you guess wrong, I just dont flock with the sheep blindly trusting the government

          • Drakesy on 21/09/2021 - 16:45
            +3

            @screensaver: We've got a live one!

            Thanks Hellopam/Screensaver you've made my day/week/year.

            • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 16:47

              @Drakesy: I have chosen which vaccine I think is best for me. The problem is that its not here yet. I am unlikely to take astra but I will consider others

              • SBOB on 21/09/2021 - 17:28
                +1

                @screensaver:

                I think is best for me

                based on your medical education background?
                or just 'stuff you read' on the internet?

                • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 17:31

                  @SBOB: Based on years of research experience on a wide variety of subjects.

                  • SBOB on 21/09/2021 - 17:40
                    +4

                    @screensaver: got it
                    'stuff you read' on the internet it is :)

                  • Ughhh on 21/09/2021 - 18:03

                    @screensaver:

                    Based on years of research experience

                    Care to elaborate? Like sources for your research.

                    • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 18:05
                      +2

                      @Ughhh: I have given one The Therapeutic Goods Admin website, If you mean about vaccines, I looked up each one that is now being used, and from medical websites, not opinion sites, From a historical pesrpective my great uncle died in the Spansih Flu pandemic which killled 50 m worldwtde
                      For masks, as a child some 50 plus years ago we had a poster on the wall that said Coughs and sneezes spread diseases

                      • Ughhh on 21/09/2021 - 18:16

                        @screensaver: At least youre not venturing into blogs that pretend to understand scientific journals.

                • morse on 21/09/2021 - 18:43
                  +7

                  @SBOB: To be fair, everyone has the right to decide for themselves for medical decisions relating to themselves irrespective of their background and education. It’s consent. The onus is on the health professionals and public health system to provide information and education. Given the info and education to date it is no surprise that people don’t have a grand impression of astra in Australia.

  • genericozbargainer on 21/09/2021 - 15:05
    +29

    IMO you cant silence one side of a debate because you don't agree with it. Lots of negative implications in the long run for doing that.

      • iridiumstem on 21/09/2021 - 15:24
        +21

        This website is not for educational purposes, nor it is for that kind of information.
        If you believe that they are in the wrong, you just either ignore them or refute them. Silencing someone's opinion completely is probably not the best options.

        To be honest, as much as I support vaccination and science, fear I feel like is the driving force for both sides.

        • caramellokoala on 21/09/2021 - 15:43
          -8

          Its not about beliefs in wrong or right. Its about deliberate and pre-mediated lying.

          This site already moderates people who fall in this category by banning People sockpuppeting/Astroturfing.

          So why is this type of lie acceptable?

          • spackbace on 21/09/2021 - 15:59
            +13

            @caramellokoala:

            sockpuppeting/Astroturfing.

            Ah, sockpuppeting has nothing to do with opinions on covid or vaccines… it has everything to do with store reps not declaring themselves.

            If you're going to attempt to argue a point, at least be accurate

            • caramellokoala on 21/09/2021 - 16:07
              -4

              @spackbace: Of course it does. Its deliberate deception in both cases..

              Anti-Vaxxers are using deliberate deception on this site to make people think the Vaccines are unsafe or not needed.

              Store reps are using deliberate deception to make to try and convince users to purchase from their store.

              Why is one acceptable but the other isn't?

          • iridiumstem on 21/09/2021 - 16:40
            +9

            @caramellokoala: When you want to have a discussion on something, you need to have both sides on the field that is even and fair.
            If you want to argue against those people, then you argue that their logic is flawed and/or the evidence that they are providing is wrong.
            That in my opinion is far more convincing and more civilised way of dealing with the discussion, instead of just shutting the discussion down.

            When someone wants to intervene in that, it has to be with good reasons and supports.
            This website is not run by people who are knowledged in the field, nor they have authorities on the matter.
            This website is not about health advices nor people should expect accuracies in that field.

            Even when you have experts moderating, you'd have issues. I don't think having someone who is not an expert, moderating forums will lead to anything fun.

            When you shut down a discussion like that, it causes more problem down the line. The motives behind moderation gets questioned, etc etc.

            At least that's my opinion. Besides, I think there are enough people who basically refute one another, I think the self-regulation of the forum is enough tbh.
            I personally have not gotten into the whole arguments much, it's way better for your mental health.

            • DashCam AKA Rolts on 21/09/2021 - 18:14
              +1

              @iridiumstem: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain.

  • Ryanek on 21/09/2021 - 15:10
    +11

    I appreciate your views, but it's probably not the mod's job to moderate children.

    • jv on 23/09/2021 - 14:56
      +2

      I appreciate your views, but it's probably not the mod's job to moderate children. baffoons.

      fixed….

  • pegaxs on 21/09/2021 - 15:12
    +12

    Wow… If you think this site is full of COVID deniers, you should try talking some of the Tesla owners out of their Musk flavored Kool Aid induced misinformation stupors…

  • GG57 on 21/09/2021 - 15:18
    +14

    The thing with posts on here is, you can choose to read, you can choose to engage, or you can just move on.
    No-one is being forced to read it.

  • SF3 on 21/09/2021 - 15:20
    +6

    Read it with sorrow and you will feel hate.
    Read it with anger and you will feel vengeful.
    Read it with paranoia and you will feel confusion.
    Read it with empathy and you will feel compassion.
    Read it with love and you will feel flattery.
    Read it with hope and you will feel positive.
    Read it with humor and you will feel joy.
    Read it without bias and you will feel peace.
    Do not read it at all and you will not feel a thing.

    Cognitive dissonance is alive and real… However, Confirmation bias is stronger and most real for people.

    However, this is too hard for many of those minorities to understand…

  • geek001 on 21/09/2021 - 15:29
    +7

    The problem is, everyone is thinking the same thing as you, "I am on the right side of history".

    Anti-vaxxers are also sprouting the same statements as you:
    "They’re interested in undermining people’s faith in medical science and competent medical experts."
    For every credible medical study you use to try and debunk antivaxxer claims, they can produce an equal amount of "studies" that claim otherwise.

    Some anti-vaxxers are not anti-vaxxers, just vaxxer-hesitant. There is so much information flying around at the moment, it becomes a full time job to determine which piece of information to trust. At the end of the day, I think most people are just trying to do what's best for themselves and the people under their care.

    In the age of digital information, the information you receive has inadvertently become more of an echo chamber. Once you read an article about the "dangers" of vaccination, Google/Facebook will automatically suggest other similar "news" articles that you are "interested" in. It is a downward spiral from there. This an unfortunate side effect of personalisation or customisation, which every digital business is racing towards at the moment.

    • Gr8deel on 21/09/2021 - 15:36
      +3

      "At the end of the day, I think most people are just trying to do what's best for themselves and the people under their care". We hope so.

      • geek001 on 21/09/2021 - 16:13

        Heh, that's why I said "most people". It is important to understand what someone's intention is for doing something.

        I know some people who believes that COVID is just a flu, but got vaccinated anyway because they are in contact with vulnerable family members to keep them safe.

        Then, there are some people who are driven by some false pretense of "saving lives" by peddling some COVID "miracle" cure and some people just want to watch the world crash and burn.

    • iridiumstem on 21/09/2021 - 16:48
      +3

      Frankly speaking, I don't think anyone without any experties in the field should read the articles and try to deduce what the articles are saying.

      The language that statisticians and scientists are using are very specific and different. The results that they produce have been analysed using specific statistical "tools" that have their own caveats.

      When you don't have knowledges on those and try to analyse articles, it will lead to questionable interpretations of the article.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2021 - 17:17
        +5

        Yeah, just look at the outrage caused when the FDA replaced a test that ONLY checked for Covid with one that checks for both covid and the flu and tells you which it is (to save time/money). Everyone read the wording and assumed it meant the previous test 'couldn't tell them apart', but of course the audience for the announcement was people administering the previous test, who had the assumed knowledge that the previous test didn't pick up the flu at all.

        People need specific training just to understand 'studies' and even then plenty of trained people would need to be personally walked through them, 'doing your own research' is impossible for almost everyone, eventually you need to trust the consensus medical opinion or go and live off the grid while you wait for them to get you.

      • geek001 on 21/09/2021 - 17:18
        +2

        I totally agree. I don't think people are actually reading medical journals and medical reports online though. They are reading "news" articles interpreting the results, which is unfortunate because if you look at the material from anti-vaxxers, a lot of their claims and scaremongering hinges on this misinterpretation. The anti-vaxxer article will usually reference these legitimate medical studies and thus giving the article more credibility ironically.

        For example, in the UK's COVID Vaccine Yellow card reporting, the top reported side effect is "Blood disorders". If you actually drill down into the report, the most reported side effect by far under the "blood disorder" category is swollen lymph nodes, which is a normal reaction when your body is fighting something foreign. But it sounds a lot more scary if you say that "blood disorders are a common side effect of the vaccine", which is technically true, but misleading.

        • iridiumstem on 23/09/2021 - 15:11

          Trust me, I have seen people bringing up articles. Whether they were just skimming through the abstract and only reading the bits and pieces without understanding them is another matter however.

          I hate reading articles unless it's relevant to my needs and I had to read them.
          It made me very peeved.

  • PensionerXXL on 21/09/2021 - 15:38
    +16

    sorry OP. let's remove all the posts you don't agree with

    I mean it's just so unjust that you come to this deals website, to discuss topics like covid19 and have to read many posts that upset you.
    Hey mods, can we set up "trigger" warnings just like deal alerts? Better still, can we get the contact information for a rape crisis hotline for OP's consistent butthurt?
    let's rally around OP and support them through all the self-inflicted abuse they subscribe to on a daily/hourly basis.

    • caramellokoala on 21/09/2021 - 15:59
      -8

      Seriously using the rape hotline as punchline for your joke?

      what an angry small-minded misguided person you are.

      • PensionerXXL on 21/09/2021 - 16:14
        +16

        ah so now we are into the assumptions and name-calling?

        clearly, you are of stellar character and your posts are above reproach - let me guess, your posts are above reproaching because you are preaching from an article then linking said article as the basis for your argument/stance therefore automatically right?

        you are being awfully militant with your desperate attempts to control a particular narrative

    • jv on 23/09/2021 - 14:57

      sorry OP. let's remove all the posts you don't agree with

      Not all, just the ones from baffoons spreading dangerous, false, misinformation…

      • PensionerXXL on 23/09/2021 - 15:04
        +1

        then we would have to censor our own govt. as they've released confirmed lies at press releases, the main one was that AZ did not cause bloodclots while news was pouring out of other countries about the clots :)

        it cuts both ways my friend

        • jv on 23/09/2021 - 15:31

          then we would have to censor our own govt.

          As far as I know, Dan doesn't post on OzBargain…

          • PensionerXXL on 23/09/2021 - 16:37

            @jv: to be fair it was schomo and all the other premmies touting that line

            • jv on 23/09/2021 - 16:40

              @PensionerXXL:

              other premmies touting that line

              I was referring to: "they've released confirmed lies at press releases"

              • PensionerXXL on 23/09/2021 - 17:00

                @jv: oh now im picking up what you are putting down. so if they lied on their personal accounts, BANNED!
                got it :D

  • MS Paint on 21/09/2021 - 15:43
    +2

    That makes sense. Cheers

  • Ocker on 21/09/2021 - 15:53
    +5

    What a load of crap!

  • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 15:58
    +10

    We are in uncharted territory. The doctors and scientists dont have all the answers. We even see some errors they have made along the way. I stumbled across an article that said that the TGA had a weeky safety report. It discussed that weeks safety report. It said there were 2 reported deaths from astra zenica. Under normal cirumstances, no governnent should allow a medicine known to kill people. At least the potential consumers should know. But we have a situation where they are actively only allowing that shot to be given for a certain age group. So we have a right to ask questions.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2021 - 17:34
      +5

      Under normal cirumstances, no governnent should allow a medicine known to kill people.

      Peanut butter kills people. Sorry to say that even under normal circumstances there are risks with everything, including plenty of approved medicines, it's just a matter of choosing the option that is the lowest risk, for a reasonable cost. The risks of the vaccines have been very widely publicised, even though in Australia, with lockdowns, quarantine, border closure, and restrictions, the virus itself has killed thousands, and if every single Australian was given the AZ vaccine, it would still kill about as many people as die in car accidents each week.

      Obviously, under ideal circumstances, if given the choice between a vaccine that has not had any fatal reactions and one that has had a handful, you'd definitely choose the one that hasn't had any.

      Also worth noting that many people are getting confused between 'deaths following vaccination' and 'deaths because of vaccination'. If someone dropped dead after posting here, that would be a death following posting on OzBargain, and that, if posting was a vaccine, would be reported as a 'death following'. While it's only after an investigation that the final cause would be established (eg, a bee sting).

      Absolutely people need to know these things, but people also need to understand them. That's why people's GPs are the best source of information, they can check if people actually understand, or just 'know' and it gives them a chance to ask questions. No one is being asked to get vaccinated without being allowed to ask questions, it's just asking them online from anonymous people is a good way to get misinformed.

      Also to note, there was a reason for giving the AZ vaccine to older people, and that was because the risk was indicated to be substantially lower in older people, from an already very low risk base. There are always things people don't know, in the end you have to go with the current best information.

      • brendanm on 21/09/2021 - 17:40
        +2

        even though in Australia, with lockdowns, quarantine, border closure, and restrictions, the virus itself has killed thousands

        Is this the misinformation that op was talking about? 1000 is not "thousands".

        • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2021 - 17:42
          +1

          Mis-typed, meant over 1000. See, don't trust anyone on the internet.

      • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 17:46
        +4

        This is from the TGAs own website The overwhelming majority of deaths reported to the TGA following vaccination occurred in people aged 65 years and older.

        However I note that it is a govt website and it is in their interests to downplay adverse reactions.

        Did you even consider that?

        • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2021 - 18:33
          +2

          The TGA’s interest is actually to investigate even possible adverse reactions. If you’re a medical professional and you don’t report a reaction you can be struck off.

          Remember the government holding a big press conference to announce the potential adverse reactions? Yeah, that sounds just like them downplaying them. If anything they’ve given them massively more attention than they warrant.

        • wizzy on 21/09/2021 - 19:12
          +3

          The overwhelming majority of deaths reported to the TGA following vaccination occurred in people aged 65 years and older.

          Your quote is from the COVID-19 vaccine weekly safety report - 16-09-2021, linked below:

          https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safe…

          That same report says:

          "The protective benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 continue to far outweigh the potential risks of vaccination."

          and

          "the TGA has found that 9 reports of deaths were linked to immunisation from 535 reports received and reviewed."

          and

          "We are aware that false claims have been circulating based on misinterpretation of information published in the DAEN. Publication of a report in the DAEN does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event, but simply reflects the observations of the person who reported the event. It is important to remember that many unrelated medical events occur by chance after immunisation. This is especially the case when hundreds of thousands of people are being vaccinated each week."

          and

          "To 12 September 2021, approximately 10.8 million doses of the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) vaccine have been administered in Australia. The reports of suspected side effects we receive for this vaccine are consistent with what has been observed in the clinical trials and by other medicine regulators overseas. Most side effects resolve within a few days."

          So the overwhelming majority of deaths in people over 65 they are referring to is fewer than 9 people out of 10.8 million doses (which I assume equates to 5 million people). Even one death is terrible, but taking the quote out of context like you did makes it sound like there have been hundreds of deaths. That is fear mongering.

          • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 19:18
            -1

            @wizzy: Its called fact checking.

            • wizzy on 21/09/2021 - 19:28
              +5

              @screensaver: No. Taking a quote out of context to suit your own agenda is misleading. You were misleading people.

              That is very far from fact checking.

            • SBOB on 21/09/2021 - 19:32
              +2

              @screensaver:

              Its called fact checking.

              i agree, @wizzy going off, finding your quote and detailing how you've neglected or ignored several additional points of relevant information from the same article/report… that would be classified as fact checking.

              • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 20:33
                +1

                @SBOB: I was quoting an exact quote from their website. I did not add or subtract from in any way. You added to it. Not me.

                • wizzy on 21/09/2021 - 21:16
                  +5

                  @screensaver: Nobody said that you added or subtracted from the quote in any way. The quote is accurate.

                  What you did was to ignore the rest of the report, and the overall message of the report, by cherry picking a single quote to further your own agenda and sensationalise the content of the report.

                  That is not "fact checking." That is misleading fear mongering.

                  • screensaver on 21/09/2021 - 21:35
                    +1

                    @wizzy: my agenda was to quote from the report, not copy and paste the whole report. No one reads a whole mass of words.
                    This was about astrazenica and the over 65s.
                    The rest of it we have all heard before so there is no need to repeat it.
                    This was something new.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join