SOCIAL MEDIA SESSIONS – FREE SPEECH & FALSE EQUIVALENCE

Today is a take on the above comment I saw on a post which thoroughly debunks a Joe Rogan episode [1] by The Unbiased Science Podcast [2], in which discredited cardiologist Peter McCullough spouts a fountain of COVID nonsense, echoing an anti-vax standpoint. This commenter makes a calm, thoughtful point and isn’t antagonising, belittling, or anything like that; but as it is fair game for criticism in a public space, I’d like to point out some easily missed flaws in this argument. As I will highlight, what seems like a fair set of points at face value misses the point in this context when dealing with mass spreading of harmful mis/disinformation.

---

‘The Minority Opinion’

Firstly, I would agree that a big part of Joes appeal to people is relatability to the lay person, just trying to discuss and throw opinions around. This is fine, but not all opinions are valid or useful (and as such can be counter-productive and even dangerous). The truth is not a matter of opinion. This is especially important in the context of verifiable facts or more accurately in this case, opinions being portrayed as facts, as though they deserve to be considered seriously as truth. This is false equivalence [3] or false balance. [13]

When you have this kind of disinformation being touted in an environment where public concerns and health implications are part of the same conversation, it’s no longer a ‘harmless discussion’, ‘just asking questions’ or ‘a balanced opinion’. It’s in bad faith in this case to assume it is a good thing to hear the minority opinion (broadcast to 11 million people), when in no way trying to show the real balance: in that it is extremely outweighed by expert consensus.

I would argue that on topics such as public health measures and vaccines, the minority opinion is not only invalid, but dangerous when granted a public platform of millions, given more weight than is warranted, and when opinions posed as factual are left unchecked. I say the opinion is invalid, but I’m not disregarding concerns, fears and questions of consumers of the podcast – which there are answers to. I also use ‘dangerous’ in the context of a large public outreach platform, where such fake ‘facts’ can discourage lay-people from trusting real medical expertise. That is the far reaching danger, not to mention the financial implications [12], and ultimately prolonging and forcing more temporary restrictions on the freedoms we take for granted.

In such topics which are real public concerns, I argue that the majority opinion – that is of all relevant medical and scientific expertise, is of much more value than the minority opinion.

The minority opinion in this case is of non-relevant ‘expertise’, fringe anti-science or politically divisive characters, or discredited individuals who won’t change their minds based on evidence; and who continue to make unsubstantiated and often factually wrong claims, in an authoritative manner. It’s therefore hard to argue that there is any real ‘value’ in platforming the latter groups, and elevating them to a level of false equivalence.

---

‘You don’t have to believe it’

This one bugs me a little bit. Here’s the thing – I don’t think that Rogan sets out to try to make people believe things, not at all. But I know a lot of his pernicious guests are doing exactly that, to further financial, personal, or political gain. Some are just mistaken.

Another point is that it doesn’t matter that you don’t have to believe it – of course you don’t. The point is that people do because they are led to. Grifters know exactly how to exploit people’s emotions, concerns, and gaps in knowledge. They are experts at setting up cognitive traps and you can fall into them no matter how smart you are.

It is in my opinion immoral to enable the mass endorsement of easily refutable (for experts) lies which may affect outcomes in people’s lives. I think most people despite what they believe is true, would agree with that sentiment – nobody wants to be lied to. By failing to fact check, call out misinformation, and vet the sources, Joe is demonstrating his irresponsibility. Essentially, he is indirectly endorsing these peoples’ views on his platform and giving them a huge public outreach.

To oppose this vocally is not to oppose free speech; nobody is ‘entitled’ to a large public platform to tell potentially dangerous lies unopposed; and if you were to disagree with that, then by the same virtue it is equally valid to oppose it with good reason, and call out the misuse of the term ‘free speech’ when used to defend the false balance and misinformation being spoken.

I don’t think that Joe should be cancelled, and vehemently disagree that the government should silence him, but we should absolutely be challenging his enabling of certain dis/misinformation and questioning the integrity of his guests. Remember: calling out demonstrably false lies is not the same as opposing free speech. Free speech is the exact reason we can in fact speak up and oppose lies and bad ideas without the threat of government oppression. There are consequences for what we say and where we say it.

---

Claiming no expertise doesn’t make it ok

Joe repeatedly absolves himself of his now inherent journalistic responsibility by making it clear that he is not an expert on a topic, and they are ‘just conversations’. He uses this and several other classic grifter lines to constantly deflect [15] criticism and scrutiny of absurd and long debunked claims.

He then lends undue attention to people spreading misinformation like Peter McCullough, who do (misleadingly) claim to have relevant expertise, or at least are perceived to have, with no disclaimer from Joe. If Joe wanted to genuinely seek truth, ask questions and address his concerns, you’d think he’d start having some credible experts in immunology, virology, public health etc, to reassure and educate him about vaccines[4], disproven treatments[5], and fake experts[6].

A disclaimer before a broadcasting of cherry picked half-truths, speculations and lies doesn’t make it any more acceptable when people like Robert Malone [14], Peter McCullough, Bret Weinstein[7], Alex Jones[8], Pierre Kory etc are then granted a platform reaching millions, without due diligence. Where is the balance there then? All of these people put together don’t even begin to budge the weight of the scientific consensus on COVID-19 issues. I would sit on the charitable side of taking his word that he is ‘just asking questions’ for now, but I think it’s also possible that he is using his guests to support his views[9].

Some of these guests are actually trained physicians and qualified in some form of science, which makes it even more convincing to those who are unsure how to determine who has legitimate grounds for truth. But it is usually those whose ideas are not tangible, are disproven or not substantiated by the scientific consensus of evidence, that end up on their own crusades. This podcast episode below is a good discussion about how and why decidedly smart people endorse pseudoscience. [10]

---

The Free Speech Cover

To build on my earlier points regarding free speech, it’s an old tactic for proponents of factually wrong claims to hide behind ‘free speech’ and under the narrative of censorship [3] of alternative treatments to vaccines. To be clear, the reason that the people misrepresenting vaccines and various treatments are being challenged, is because these issues are already studied, there is already a strong scientific consensus opposing their incorrect views, and they are demonstrably wrong and/or causing harm in some form.

Nobody is “getting tired of free speech”. That is simply a strawman logical fallacy. The commenter has misrepresented what was meant in the post from being:

“tired of having to debunk one person spreading nonsense when there are mountains of data supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific and medical expert community.”

To:

“getting tired of free speech”

This is a misrepresentation of the original statement and an oversimplification as well – that is taking the detailed specific explanation that was originally meant, and reducing that to mean the broad concept of ‘free speech’ [11].

1. People making false claims are not being censored or their free speech revoked (it’s this reason that we have these talking points at all)

2. It would also be at the platform’s discretion as to what quality of information they allow on their platform, and what level of responsibility they acknowledge for the power they hold. This is their right as much as anyone’s right to free speech.

3. If it is a platform’s policy to fact check and prevent misinformation concerning public health, this is perfectly legitimate - both morally and by virtue of their rights as a platform owner. I can’t think of how it can be considered a negative thing to remove potentially dangerous misinformation from a platform in the interest of its users, which is refuted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific and medical expert community.

Far from being about free speech, this issue is about misinformation. It seems a common route when not backed by evidence or good reason, for propagators of dis and misinformation to wriggle out of their corner under the free speech and censorship banner. This is a form of misdirection.

---

Fighting the Good Fight

As for the last sentence from our commenter, well for science communicators it is not an option to stop debunking the same persistent trash claims. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to vent their frustrations about it either, or that they should love it all the time. It’s a little dismissive of the great work that these scientists (shout out to Dr Andrea C. Love and Dr Jessica B. Steier) tirelessly put into improving public health knowledge.

They put in all of this effort on top of their full time medical professions in the hope of providing reliable and accessible information to address peoples’ concerns, educate the public and counter the rampant misinformation and conspiracies out there. It’s sorely needed that more and more working researchers, credible science-doers, and experienced working physicians in the relevant fields, try to unshroud themselves from their extremely demanding schedules, and reveal the good work they do in an accessible format.

Finally, trash claims need debunking. The public have a need for and a right to truth. Liars motivated by personal, political, or financial gain need calling out (if not by Joe with his inherited responsibility to do so, then by his platform, or science communicators). It’s ironic how easily this right to truth is overshadowed by peoples perceived entitlement to perpetuate poorly vetted and false claims.

The undermining of scientific achievements, public health experts, credible (well done) research, and expertise, is a deeply seeded and pervasive problem in society. It has become ever easier for denialists and grifters to hide in plain sight. Everyone has the right to free speech and Rogan’s is not being taken away, but ask yourself this: should everyone be entitled to a large public soap box by which to mislead people, to the detriment of public health? Should everyone be exempt from scrutiny or the consequences of their choices?

I don’t see how we can uphold the integrity of empirical truths, without also acknowledging when popular but wrong ideas are found to be false.

---

Links & Resources

[1] The original post by Unbiased Science debunking the claims made by Peter McCullough about COVID-19 - https://www.facebook.com/unbiasedscipod/posts/458515259270143

[2] Link to the Unbiased Science Podcast website featuring tonnes of public health, COVID-19 and Vaccine resources by Andrea C. Love (Bachelor of Science in Biology, PhD in microbiology and immunology) and Jessica B. Steier (Master of Public Health (Evaluative Sciences), Doctor of Public Health degree, and a noted expert in COVID-19) - https://www.unbiasedscipod.com/

[3] A great article by independent science journalism website The Conversation, about the problem with opinions vs facts in science, and how pseudoscience abuses it - https://theconversation-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/theconversation.com/amp/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion

[4] A brilliant post discussing the components of vaccines, methods, ingredients and what they do, and the safety of them - https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/basic-vaccine-chemistry-for-those-who-are-confused-by-it/

[5] Extremely deep dive on the now disproven treatments Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin - https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-3-conspiracy-theories-vs-science/

[6] Excellent article discussing how to discern fake experts from legitimate science and real expertise - https://debunkingdenialism.com/critical-thinking/science-denialist-tactics/fake-experts/?fbclid=IwAR005FZHEfqc4rk6EyyyUwWdVd_B36EErlTRUd02XUFtN9ADxCNPW7qKaoQ

[7] Extremely deep dive on how Bret Weinstein (NOT an expert in any relevant field to COVID-19) misinterpreted the data for Ivermectin, and why he is wrong - https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-4-bret-weinstein-misrepresents-meta-analyses/

[8] A top ten list exposing some of the ridiculous conspiracies of Alex Jones, and the pseudoscience product scams he sells as a means to profit from his lies - https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/08/16/alex-jones-top-10-health-claims-and-why-they-are-wrong/?sh=58ef35663e7f

[9] A well-written article deconstructing the nefarious undercurrents of Joe Rogan’s podcast of late - https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/joe-rogan-covid19-misinformation-ivermectin-spotify-podcast-1219976/

[10] Brilliant podcast episode from Rationally Speaking hosted by Massimo Pigliucci (PhD in Biology, Doctorate in Genetics, PhD in philosophy of science, Bachelor of Science and Masters in Biological Sciences), about how and why decidedly smart people endorse pseudoscience - http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/9-when-smart-people-endorse-pseudoscience/

[11] A great explanation of what free speech actually is, why the laws around it are important, and when it is or isn’t important to consider - https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/practicing-medicine-without-a-license-is-not-free-speech/

[12] Breaking down the financial implications of actions resulting from disinformation and anti-science groups. Also refuting the ‘Big Pharma’ angle that the vaccines are about money rather than preventative medicine - https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-pharma/

[13] A great clear description and definition of the logical fallacy of false equivalence - https://thinkingispower.com/logical-fallacies/#h-false-equivalence

[14] A wiki summary of the continual false claims and anti-science activities of Robert Malone - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

[15] Very well written article exposing the ways in which Joe constantly deflects valid criticisms of his guests and misrepresentation of their views as balanced - https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/joe-just-conversations-rogan-defends-misinformation-like-a-classic-grifter/?fbclid=IwAR27DYkRCBoXxE7AB9epzeWp3tJvlJhKzvLbINNdrKSL-U0JWcyFM5A0eBo