I do moderate here, it’s just not something I really have time for, or something I enjoy.
Whenever you get a large group together focused on longevity we are going to get some extreme outliers, because we are all outliers from the mainstream medical community.
We have a couple people who might not believe the 2025 measles outbreak in the mennonite community in Texas is due to their antivax beliefs, but generally we don’t attract that group. And I am glad of that. We have only banned about 5 people in the past 3+ years and this is generally because they were disruptive (out of the approximately 5000 community members here), so we generally seem to be attracting the more scientifically oriented as we are trying to do.
I am happy to review messages that at their core seem anti science to you, just flag them so I see them. But generally I prefer to take a lighter touch in moderation here and I try to be open to new ideas. If you moderate too heavily you risk discouraging new ideas and discussions. I think it’s a hard balance to strike and I am sure I am making lots of mistakes. We are all imperfect humans
18 Likes
KiSS
#162
You think it’s fine to leave for internet posterity “debates” about whether or not childhood vaccines are bad for society, actually. Including links to propaganda that has been in fact banned from Facebook, YouTube, etc.
IMO and in fact, that’s allowing this site to be effective anti vax propaganda site with a measurable conversion rate even if tiny. As the admin you know that the amount of readers who don’t log in always dwarf the forum user base on a public forum.
1 Like
I think it is reasonable for @RapAdmin to have a light touch moderation policy. Speaking personally I do not agree with the anti-vaxers and have supported the vaccination of my children with MMR. However, really this is not a site in which we should get into those discussions anyway. However, being too controlled about moderation ends up with a lot of work for the moderator (s) and can end up with rows. Hence I am entirely happy for the moderation to continue as it has been.
4 Likes
Apparently you don’t believe in the sunshine argument. Is it healthier to allow people to bring up poor ideas in order that they may be debunked, or is it better to suppress the expression of such ideas altogether? FWIW, our most prominent political thinkers thought the sunshine argument was correct, and enshrined that in our laws, believing it a net positive for society. Leaders elsewhere thought differently. Who was right? That remains contentious.
Anti-vaxxer ideas are widespread out there. Banning them from this site is not going to disappear them from circulation everywhere else. It is highly unlikely that anyone would get their first exposure to anti-vaxx propaganda on this site. But perhaps that kind of propaganda can be debunked more convincingly on this site owing to the caliber of the user base, in which case that might be an argument for allowing the airing of errant messages and the net result would be good for society.
The only argument for banning such content is a rather selfish or perhaps practical one. Having endless arguments about silly stuff creates a lot of noise and can significantly degrade user experience. So it’s more practical to just avoid it by banning. Furthermore, more selfishly, I personally would not spring to action arguing against anti-vaxxers, I don’t have the patience or energy or willingness to waste my time engaging with flat earth arguments, I would therefore not be providing any sunshine disinfectant. Therefore from a selfish perspective I should argue for banning, just so I don’t have to deal with it. However, if I am to be socially responsible, I think a limited amount of polite nonaggresive airing of “exotic” views is probably a net positive for the site, because it assures that there is a safety margin for other, potentially valuable, though controversial ideas not to be suppressed.
Bottom line, RapAdmin’s “light touch” seems like the best compromise for the good of the site, balancing intellectual freedom with usability.
4 Likes
Beth
#165
I also agree with rapadmin’s light touch and cronostempi’s mention of the sunshine theory.
I have never once witnessed even an inkling that this site is heading down this unpleasant internet road you mention. If it did, I’m sure things would change. As of now, everyone I see is very respectful of each other, even when disagreeing.
I am sure there are a few more, but I can only think of two anti vaxxers here and I happen to like them both, as do all or most of the others. Most don’t agree on this one issue, but their other contributions offer a lot of value and I’ve learned from both of them, and wouldn’t it be sad to lose the other stuff.
From where I sit, their anti-vax feelings are expressed in a respectful and mostly productive way. And it’s not like they block me because I mention I’m vegan. That word alone would illicit a lot of hate elsewhere on the interwebs. We are a pretty tolerant group.
I mean, heck, what if we banned a DHA heretic? IYKYK 
8 Likes
medaura
#166
100% agree even if it might be not straightforward to reconcile with what I wrote upthread. I too run a number of online communities and I like to keep them very much pro free speech, meaning letting all flowers bloom, no censorship of opinions. However there’s people out there who are pure jerks and invariably they find out that free speech is the hill I will die on and will abuse it until I have to suspend or ban them. It’s never about opinions per se (although jerks tend to gravitate towards insane positions) but about their trolling, desire to start fights, abuse and harass or provoke other members etc. And then it turns off normal people and they don’t like to engage anymore. So, absolutely I think anyone with experience running any online forum will hit that wall sooner or later — as I was myself very disappointed to find out. Bad apples need pruning or else they spoil the whole batch. What constitutes a bad apple is really at the sole discretion of the person running the show, but in my experience it’s not necessarily crazy beliefs as much as it is personal obnoxiousness of conduct, in ways of engaging with others, in how to handle constructive criticism etc.
3 Likes
KiSS
#167
Bringing government policies and political thinkers into this is an ultimate dodge, because A) Free speech is a legal concept that applies only to government punishments on speech. B) Corporations have also been granted the free speech legal protections.
Moderation on a non government site, has fuck all to do with what political theorists thought of when it comes to free speech. The government has the power of exile, imprisonment, fines all backed with implicit threat of state violence to enforce. I too think that speech even that which is a public health problem should be allowed. That has nothing to do with broadcasting it on rapamycin.news. Do you agree that my values are consistent and not contradictory?
2 Likes
I don’t think its as black and white as you seem to suggest. I have no problem banning people who might promote incessantly here an anti-measles or anti-polio vaccine perspective. From my reading, there is no scientific disagreement on the huge value of these vaccines.
But there are other arguments that seem like they may be open to some legitimate debate, such as the side effect profile vs. efficacy of RNA vaccines. I personally don’t care that much about this debate; I’ve taken RNA vaccines without any issues that I can tell, but some people may want to dig in the weeds about this specific issue. I’m ok with that discussion.
5 Likes
LukeMV
#169
Tried to avoid this thread for a bit but just couldn’t help but click it. I have thoughts I’ll keep to myself, but I just want to say we need more people like Beth around here. I can feel the kindness in her heart from across my iPad screen.
6 Likes
Beth
#170
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
That was so incredibly sweet of you to say, thank you.
In fact, I’ll share this with everyone I know IRL who thinks I’m a b___
4 Likes
I am not clear on what is a dodge here. I am fully aware that the first amendment protects free speech from the government and does not apply to private enterprise. That was not the point of my bringing it up. My point rather was the motivation behind it - why exactly did those people think it valuable to have. It wasn’t just about being able to hold the government accountable, that’s the downstream effect of the idea itself, the idea being that free and unencumbered inquiry and its expression is the best method of getting at truth and generating wisdom. There are many quotes from them, which illuminate their reasoning. And that is what I was getting at - that it has been long recognized that truth and wisdom are best forged in the vigorous pursuit of free speech. That idea is valid regardless of any political or legal context. Arguments presented in the marketplace of ideas are best assessed in the context of free speech, regardless of whether it’s the government or a private enterprise.
A private website, such as this one, is not obligated to provide a platform for any published views in the name of free speech - that is not in question. What is at question is whether it’s wise and advisable to allow a certain degree of freedom to express controversial and even wrongheaded views, so that unfettered inquiry is preserved to the greatest degree practical, for the benefit of all.
And apparently we answer that question differently. You think it most advisable to disallow all clearly wrong and harmful propaganda, such as anti-vaxx n this site. I propose that if small amounts of such harmful ideas are allowed, it’s a net positive because it stimulates a well argued opposition, which might convince some of those who would otherwise be deceived, as those ideas are spread everywhere anyhow. Here at least they can be opposed very effectively. A hormetic effect, if you will.
I’m thinking of an example that actually happened here. A poster (a health book author) posted an anti-vaxx argument. He was met with well reasoned counterarguments, demolishing his thesis. When he then came back with the same faulty points, unable to address the counterarguments, he was swiftly shut down (including by me !), pointing out that he failed to meet the opposing arguments, and therefore will not be allowed to post that thesis again, unless he can muster new arguments. He was not able to, and he went away. That I think is a good compromise, it allows a bad idea to be presented, defeated, and then prevented from being repeated.
That’s my view, but of course, other views might be the better course of action. RapAdmin is the one who gets to decide.
3 Likes
There are in fact two aspects of this particular post that are abusive.
a) The use of the word “dodge” implies dishonesty on the part of another poster
b) The use of profane language creates an aggressive debating environment which is not helpful in terms of working out what is and what is not true.
I would ask that you refrain from such approaches.
4 Likes
KiSS
#175
When you are the boss you make your rules, otherwise report it and move on. I do think it’s dishonest to try and say legal frameworks for free speech are somehow relevant to moderation on a fringe health site.
1 Like
medaura
#176
It’s not necessarily dishonest. Many Americans don’t understand what their 1st amendment means. You’re right on the substance in this case but I think your theory of mind is full of gaping holes if you impute malice and dishonesty to positions easily accounted for by casual ignorance. And hey look I am by no means immune to the occasional bout of obscenities but it sounds really odd when completely unprovoked.
1 Like
KiSS
#177
I said dodge/dishonest because rhetorically, it’s a starts as the fallacy of appeal to authority. That these authorities enshrined and or practiced child rape, women as property, and chattel slavery should be proof that they have shitty takes. Even so @CronosTempi could pull all the quotes you want, it wouldn’t disentangle the theorists from the context of free from government interference speech.
We have in this thread, people arguing that there isn’t even a 2025 measles outbreak and several link outs to anti childhood vaccine propaganda. Those posters are valued members apparently, which is uhh lol super awesome.
There are a number of issues with this:
Logical fallacies are relevant to logic not rhetoric. Hence you should say logically not rhetorically
It is not an appeal to authority to consider the reasoning behind the arguments for freedom of speech.
Even if it were that is not necessarily dishonest, it would be an error of logic.
For example you make a number of logical errors in your post where you attack the authors of the US constitution and posters to this topic on an adhominem basis. That is a logical error. I dont think there is evidence that you are aware of this. Hence it is not dishonest.
3 Likes
medaura
#179
I don’t think you’ll ever realize how discrediting your comment is to everything you might have to say in the eyes of normies, how profoundly it undermines any estimation of your judgment. I’m not saying you can’t be right, but in light of that comment, in my eyes at least, it will be as a broken clock being right twice a day. Unearned moral indignation is a self satisfying emotion often abused these days. Anyone looking to take offense will find someone or something to give it.
6 Likes
Beth
#180
I pointed out that the people with whom I don’t agree with post in good faith and are respectful…
You apparently don’t have that quality…. and frankly, as shown in your last post, you argue in a very childish manner, but yet you judge others for their behavior…
*scratches my head.
5 Likes
KiSS
#181
I’m not morally indignant that the founding fathers practiced or enshrined the things that I mentioned. It’s just historical fact, widely documented. It’s like saying the Japanese were aggressors in WWII. I’m not morally indignant about that either. I consider your comment as a dodge as well, you are saying normies wouldn’t like it, so that’s the problem, not “I don’t like it when you talk about my elementary school heroes”. If someone wants to hold up founding father free speech thoughts as a beacon of light, it’s certainly fair to mention their other strongly held beliefs and practices.
I personally think someone saying childhood vaccines cause autism, or in 2025 there’s no measles outbreak is disqualifying on a deep level, considering this is on a board that “values science”. I recognize that I’m in the minority here and that’s ok with me.
KiSS
#182
It’s true, i absolutely have contempt for anti vaxxers and those who want to argue that there’s no measles outbreak in 2025. I would not welcome their praise with civility.
I shouldn’t judge those who can’t even parse this simple equation for childhood vaccines?
