Lawyer&Mom Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I'm an avid reader of Nymag.com. It was amusing to see two worlds collide... It doesn't seem lazy or inappropriate for them to provide their readers with a glimpse of what anti-vaccine parents are thinking, in their own words. I thought it was interesting and informative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 LOL. I used to hang on Mothering.com...same user name. They changed the board software and many people left...and so did I. When I was preggers with my first, it was a lifesaver. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I was on mothering.com for a while when I had my first, and didn't realize how "you're an idiot if you don't agree with me" it was until I left. It's like a parody of a thoughtful discussion..... it looks like one, but it's actually the exact opposite. That is exactly why I left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 The piece is about what anti-vaxers are saying online. They could only find two quotes from WTM. We are a huge community. So...not bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 LOL. I used to hang on Mothering.com...same user name. They changed the board software and many people left...and so did I. When I was preggers with my first, it was a lifesaver. :) I know. I recognized you because you used a similar avatar. :) You were very nice there. Many people were. I was very disappointed when friendliness turned to hostility when I questioned their ability to evaluate things like vaccines and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Can I ask which blog that was?!? That's pretty freaky. I imagine many of us frequent the same areas of the blogosphere.... I'd better not say - I am still a little freaked out. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I wonder what kind of trouble you can get into by changing your user name to that of a real person who isn't you? Does anyone else ever like a post early on, and then have to unlike it to like it again before getting to the end of the post? I'm tempted to unlike you now. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Aside from extremely lazy journalism, this makes me wonder what the rules are about just randomly taking people's posts from a board and using them in a news article. I know nothing on the internet is private, but that doesn't mean it's a free for all either. I can't just take anyone's content and post it to my blog where I made money from ads or page views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Aside from extremely lazy journalism, this makes me wonder what the rules are about just randomly taking people's posts from a board and using them in a news article. I know nothing on the internet is private, but that doesn't mean it's a free for all either. I can't just take anyone's content and post it to my blog where I made money from ads or page views. Brief excerpts, such as used in this article, would generally fall under the fair use exception to copyright law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Wow, it is inappropriate to take comments from boards and post them in an article. People should give permission before being quoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Brief excerpts, such as used in this article, would generally fall under the fair use exception to copyright law. Fair use is 100 words. That is more than 100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan in TN Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Ack! Don't change your names! I haven't learned all the new avatars yet! (I'm sorry for being so slow...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soror Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 LOL. I used to hang on Mothering.com...same user name. They changed the board software and many people left...and so did I. When I was preggers with my first, it was a lifesaver. :) Me too, it was my community for about 5 ish years and I switched to this one as the priorities and focus of my life changed. I prefer WTM vastly, the group on Mothering is too homogeneous. I never really felt bullied but I don't think I was educated nearly as much there as I have here. Having just one viewpoint is never good, I love that there are so many different kinds of people here, as with anything one side is rarely/never right about everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reign Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Mothering.com is why I homeschool. After I had finished reading all the regular posts I moved on to the education sub forum. Eventually someone recommended the well trained mind and the rest is history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 One of these days I'm going to have to go back and edit all my posts. All nearly 14,000 of them. :P Even though I am anonymous, I need to stop posting so many facts. Especially the ones about extended family members who would recognize themselves. I know!! I'll be editing out many posts on a certain thread! Geez! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momto10blessings Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I didn't read many comments... But what if the writer of the article is HERE! Dun dun dun.... Paging Jen Kirby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaConquest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 We need to have a Mothering.com reunion. I left another forum -- probably the one discussed upthread -- because of stalking as well. It was seriously nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I didn't read many comments... But what if the writer of the article is HERE! Dun dun dun.... Paging Jen Kirby. They had to have been here at least once. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelwydd Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 If you ever needed a reminder that everything you post is public. . . Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Oh, good grief. That "reporter" is not doing her job. If you quote, you quote in context. That thread had way more pro- than anti-vaccinators. It never does any good to defend yourself. I'll just content myself with putting "reporter" into quotes. And I'd also like to point out that I keep TELLING y'all that this is not a private place. SWB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Nyssa Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Elisabet1, did you mean to say "dollar coasters"? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Elisabet1, did you mean to say "dollar coasters"? :) I giggled at that. Of course they had to quote when she made a typo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Nyssa Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Well, Disney is pretty expensive. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I think it's kind of funny that on a forum with a high percentage of people who do vaccinate they only picked two comments that come over as antivax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten18 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 We need to have a Mothering.com reunion. I left another forum -- probably the one discussed upthread -- because of stalking as well. It was seriously nuts.I think I know you from another forum, it spun off into a semi-private forum but I didn't stay there for long before I found this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Well, Disney is pretty expensive. :) :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 OK, so it's perfectly fine for some idiot to quote members of this forum for an article -- with no permission required -- but SWB nearly got sued a while back because someone innocently posted a celebrity's photo here... :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Oh, good grief. That "reporter" is not doing her job. If you quote, you quote in context. That thread had way more pro- than anti-vaccinators. The report wasn't about the discussion taking place on forums, but specifically the comments anti-vaxers make. The ones quoted were perfect examples for the story because they illustrate the concerning lack of understanding about vaccines, how they work, and why they can be trusted, as well as how these ideas are spread and supported. The article shows some of the popular responses to scientific arguments, such as arguments that appeal to fear of conspiracy, and underestimating the effects of contagious diseases. The idea that vaccines are nothing more than a convenient method by which pharmaceutical companies can screw you (as per DesterBloom's comment), or that other accidents happen anyway every day (Elisabet1's comment) are perfect examples of distrust of science and information. Comments explaining the mechanics and benefits of vaccines wasn't the focus. Comments dismissing these explanations are, which is why they were chosen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Oh, good grief. That "reporter" is not doing her job. If you quote, you quote in context. That thread had way more pro- than anti-vaccinators. It never does any good to defend yourself. I'll just content myself with putting "reporter" into quotes. And I'd also like to point out that I keep TELLING y'all that this is not a private place. SWB You really ought to have a Like button. ;) Since you don't, I'll quote to like. The way the Hive was quoted in that article definitely would imply that many on the board are anti-vac and I just don't see it that way. Knowing the truth, I'd be distrustful of anything else the "reporter" reported on too. It would have been easy for them to add a couple of lines explaining that, "while most mothers on the board fully support vaccs allowing for exceptions where there are real medical issues, a few describe their opposing views." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Oh, good grief. That "reporter" is not doing her job. If you quote, you quote in context. That thread had way more pro- than anti-vaccinators. It never does any good to defend yourself. I'll just content myself with putting "reporter" into quotes. And I'd also like to point out that I keep TELLING y'all that this is not a private place. SWB Even before internet days, my mother used to always say, "Don't write anything down you don't want the whole world to know!" I try to be careful, I am not always, but I try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I'm not sure I agree that the posts were taken out of context. The title of the article is, after all, "What Anti-Vaccinators are Saying Online . . ." That's pretty straightforward. Anyone reading it has fair warning that it's a one-sided piece. It's not like she was writing an article about the online debate about the pros/cons of vaccination and only pulled out those quotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewb Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Ah, mothering.com. The memories. It wasn't all bad. That is where I learned about homeschooling. And how I ended up here. By the end of my stay there were many threads I just wouldn't open. Too virulent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Fair use is 100 words. You are incorrect. There is no magic line that determines whether something is fair use or not, but is rather a multi-pronged test that takes into account a variety of factors, including the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market. You can argue that you think the reporter crossed the line, but my evaluation is that this is pretty obviously fair use - just ask yourself the question "Have you ever heard of anyone, anywhere in the world, being successfully sued for copyright infringement due to a quote of similar size and character?" and the question answers itself. "I want to prevent the New York Times from quoting something I wrote on a public forum with no expectation of remuneration" isn't what copyright law is concerned with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I'm not sure I agree that the posts were taken out of context. The title of the article is, after all, "What Anti-Vaccinators are Saying Online . . ." That's pretty straightforward. Anyone reading it has fair warning that it's a one-sided piece. It's not like she was writing an article about the online debate about the pros/cons of vaccination and only pulled out those quotes. My initial impression was the same, but then I went back and read it again. This phrase jumps out at me. "Many on the anti-vaccine forums are not absolutists" and then the reporter goes on to list examples. It IS misleading to refer to TWTM forum as an anti-vaccine forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBlossom Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I just now saw this thread. I guess I don't have to change my username because they got it wrong. Lol. And ftr, I am not anti-vax. I describe myself as vaccine-cautious. I think there are some that are worth the risk and some that are absolutely not. And some vaccines I take issue with primarily because of the age they are recommended for. Hence the tone of the bit they quoted. And I believe that everyone should have the right to decide for themselves based on their medical history. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at each disease individually, the vaccine and the associated adverse reactions and make a decision based on one's personal history. I am not going to claim to be an expert, but I have done my share of research. It's why I don't counsel anyone on how they should vaccinate their own children. My comment was directed at those who seem to put a blind trust in the CDC to make blanket policies that are good for the whole. I mean, aren't many of us homeschoolers because we don't believe the government's one-size-fits-all education policies are the best fit for our children? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Apparently some pro-vax people were misquoted as sounding anti-vax from MDC? IDK, just saw this: http://www.mothering.com/forum/443-i-m-not-vaccinating/1481642-you-re-being-trolled-publicly-called-out-fyi.html This is why I have a problem with cherry picking. Along with the rabid comments on the media I've seen about taking non-vax children away, suing them, and hoping their kids die. The internet trolls are busy lately or it's just more acceptable now to wish death to children, IDK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammyla Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 :crying: Reporting, just doesn't mean what it used to. :scared: I know the board is public, but that makes me feel a little anxious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 You are incorrect. There is no magic line that determines whether something is fair use or not, but is rather a multi-pronged test that takes into account a variety of factors, including the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market. You can argue that you think the reporter crossed the line, but my evaluation is that this is pretty obviously fair use - just ask yourself the question "Have you ever heard of anyone, anywhere in the world, being successfully sued for copyright infringement due to a quote of similar size and character?" and the question answers itself. "I want to prevent the New York Times from quoting something I wrote on a public forum with no expectation of remuneration" isn't what copyright law is concerned with. If anything, the content here belongs to PHP or SWB or whatever the TOS say about us writing here, but I do think copyright stuff is almost beside the point. I don't think anyone is going to get renumeration for her quoting them anymore than any other "man-on-the-street" interview. But while reporters often quote people out of context, it seems like they usually get that person's permission to put their words (even misquoted, lol) on a page or on the nightly news. It would not have been difficult for her to get in contact with the people she quoted, either. I think the issue in this case is more about journalistic standards when it comes to sources and quality. I still think, fair use or not, it's a horrible article about the issue. Any article based off of "here's what random people on the internet are saying about x" is probably going to be pretty bad, IMO. You could find a bunch of random people on the internet saying anything about anything and it wouldn't mean anything in terms of what's actually going on in the world, KWIM? Twitchy and Buzzfeed thrive on that sort of stuff, but they're not exactly strongholds of actual good journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Knowing the truth, I'd be distrustful of anything else the "reporter" reported on too. It would have been easy for them to add a couple of lines explaining that, "while most mothers on the board fully support vaccs allowing for exceptions where there are real medical issues, a few describe their opposing views." I have never, in my entire life, seen a reporter get the facts right in a situation where I was a witness to events or had close friends who were witnesses. A lot of times, the errors weren't that important, just laughable. But it does make one realize that just about anything written by a reporter is suspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 ... But while reporters often quote people out of context, it seems like they usually get that person's permission to put their words (even misquoted, lol) on a page or on the nightly news. It would not have been difficult for her to get in contact with the people she quoted, either. I think the issue in this case is more about journalistic standards when it comes to sources and quality. I'm guessing that the lack of real names made this reporter think this was not an issue. However, I have at times seen reporters, writers, etc asking anonymous posters if they could use their words. It does seem like common courtesy. So I am also offended by the use of the words in that article without the person's permission. It's not so much about privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 it seems like they usually get that person's permission to put their words (even misquoted, lol) on a page or on the nightly news. It would not have been difficult for her to get in contact with the people she quoted, either. I think the issue in this case is more about journalistic standards when it comes to sources and quality. I don't follow. When we post on an open forum, we give permission for any and all of our words, images, and other content to be copied and used elsewhere. When the arguments were made against the benefits of vaccines here, the posters gave their consent to be quoted anywhere on or offline. Comments made here are public, and there simply is no indication or implication any poster should think otherwise. The article identified certain trends among anti-vaccine argument, and quoted concrete examples that illustrate these ideas. Conspiracy theories and dismissal of the dangers of contagious diseases are two that were illustrated from here. As awkward as it may feel, we shouldn't conflate the issues here. This isn't about being quoted out of context or about being quoted without permission. Perhaps it's about embarrassment for being associated with what many call anti-intellectual arguments. It is for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I don't follow. When we post on an open forum, we give permission for any and all of our words, images, and other content to be copied and used elsewhere. When the arguments were made against the benefits of vaccines here, the posters gave their consent to be quoted anywhere on or offline. Comments made here are public, and there simply is no indication or implication any poster should think otherwise. The article identified certain trends among anti-vaccine argument, and quoted concrete examples that illustrate these ideas. Conspiracy theories and dismissal of the dangers of contagious diseases are two that were illustrated from here. As awkward as it may feel, we shouldn't conflate the issues here. This isn't about being quoted out of context or about being quoted without permission. Perhaps it's about embarrassment for being associated with what many call anti-intellectual arguments. It is for me. So you seriously see nothing wrong with the Hive being seen as a: "Looking at anti-vaccination and non-vaccination online forums" I see that label as identifying us (group) as anti-vac which is misleading. It could have been stated far more accurately without adding tons of text, but noting that there are just a few with those beliefs and oodles who aren't wouldn't get the author's biased point across as strongly as implying there are anti-vac FORUMS out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The report wasn't about the discussion taking place on forums, but specifically the comments anti-vaxers make. The ones quoted were perfect examples for the story because they illustrate the concerning lack of understanding about vaccines, how they work, and why they can be trusted, as well as how these ideas are spread and supported. The article shows some of the popular responses to scientific arguments, such as arguments that appeal to fear of conspiracy, and underestimating the effects of contagious diseases. The idea that vaccines are nothing more than a convenient method by which pharmaceutical companies can screw you (as per DesterBloom's comment), or that other accidents happen anyway every day (Elisabet1's comment) are perfect examples of distrust of science and information. Comments explaining the mechanics and benefits of vaccines wasn't the focus. Comments dismissing these explanations are, which is why they were chosen. This is correct. However, I find the following statement from Ms. Kirby to be both erroneous and misleading: "Looking at anti-vaccination and non-vaccination online forums, many on motherhood and pregnancy sites, opinions range from dismissal to anger." This forum exists for the purpose of educating both student and teacher. The subject of vaccines is an occasional topic of conversation and as SWB pointed out, the majority of posters were pro-vaccinations. The "reporter" grabbed down a few easily accessible facts, and then cherry-picked a few Google searches. "Lazy" is an appropriate adjective for misidentifying at least one if not all of her sources. The posts were taken out of context in that the thread was identified as anti-vaccination, when it was not. ETA: Creekland types faster. She probably thinks faster too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 So you seriously see nothing wrong with the Hive being seen as a: "Looking at anti-vaccination and non-vaccination online forums" I see that label as identifying us (group) as anti-vac which is misleading. It could have been stated far more accurately without adding tons of text, but noting that there are just a few with those beliefs and oodles who aren't wouldn't get the author's biased point across as strongly as implying there are anti-vac FORUMS out there. Honestly, I suspect that the writer is a member here, even as a lurker, based on picking the WTM over SO many other forums. This isn't a hugely known space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Honestly, I suspect that the writer is a member here, even as a lurker, based on picking the WTM over SO many other forums. This isn't a hugely known space. Say it isn't so. How could one be a real member here and then write that? As they say in Hook, "Bad form!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 ETA: Creekland ... probably thinks faster too. I doubt that. My response was shorter - vacation mode typing and thinking! Yours was more in depth. We were sharing brain waves though. Great minds do tend to think alike! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I have never, in my entire life, seen a reporter get the facts right in a situation where I was a witness to events or had close friends who were witnesses. A lot of times, the errors weren't that important, just laughable. But it does make one realize that just about anything written by a reporter is suspect. Once someone in our small town was accused of a high profile crime. The press tried to hound adults, who all responsibly refused to speak to the press. "No comment." And these are not classy, educated people. Just smart enough to stay away from reporters. So the reporters went to the high school and got the cold shoulder there. So did they leave? No, they went to the middle school and tried to get eighth graders to make comments related to the case and the accusations against this person. You know. To put on TV. Thirteen-year-olds! Teachers called the cops who hounded the reporters out and then the reporters reported on that. Jerks. I have never seen anything since then (I was in high school) to change my opinion of how reporters do their work. If I do, I will let you all know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Honestly, I suspect that the writer is a member here, even as a lurker, based on picking the WTM over SO many other forums. This isn't a hugely known space. These threads come up a bit in google searches. If you go to the main forum page and scroll down to where you see who is on you can then click on "see full list." This will show you oodles of guests and MANY older threads of all sorts that end up being looked at on any given day. The writer could be someone who is here and just not that great at reporting accurately or it could be someone who found the thread via a search engine and assumed the whole forum deals motherhood rather than homeschooling - but of course, labeled it as anti-vac "forum" instead of thread to make it sound more impressive. Of course, they also might not know the difference between a forum and a thread if it's an older writer who isn't on much aside from quick searches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnerd Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 This is correct. However, I find the following statement from Ms. Kirby to be both erroneous and misleading: "Looking at anti-vaccination and non-vaccination online forums, many on motherhood and pregnancy sites, opinions range from dismissal to anger." This forum exists for the purpose of educating both student and teacher. The subject of vaccines is an occasional topic of conversation and as SWB pointed out, the majority of posters were pro-vaccinations. The "reporter" grabbed down a few easily accessible facts, and then cherry-picked a few Google searches. "Lazy" is an appropriate adjective for misidentifying at least one if not all of her sources. The posts were taken out of context in that the thread was identified as anti-vaccination, when it was not. ETA: Creekland types faster. She probably thinks faster too. This is exactly what I do not like about that article - the WTM forums being quoted on a piece about the anti-vaxxers. I have great respect for the WTM and the WTM education boards and SWB. I come here for educational resources and advise. The chat board is for "fun" and a "pastime". By selectively quoting the debates in the chat board she made it seem that anti-vaxxing is the universal truth of the whole WTM board (several forums about only educational resources are here). The quotes she chose have nothing to do with what WTM is about and it has falsely linked WTM with anti-vaxxing. Therein lies my outrage and the reason to call Ms. Kirby a lazy reporter and a cut-paster. BTW/ to me WTM chats are in the top 5 hits on a simple google search. So, most probably, Ms. Kirby googled something very simple like "vaccine measles forums" and landed on her free quotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I don't follow. When we post on an open forum, we give permission for any and all of our words, images, and other content to be copied and used elsewhere. When the arguments were made against the benefits of vaccines here, the posters gave their consent to be quoted anywhere on or offline. Comments made here are public, and there simply is no indication or implication any poster should think otherwise. The article identified certain trends among anti-vaccine argument, and quoted concrete examples that illustrate these ideas. Conspiracy theories and dismissal of the dangers of contagious diseases are two that were illustrated from here. As awkward as it may feel, we shouldn't conflate the issues here. This isn't about being quoted out of context or about being quoted without permission. Perhaps it's about embarrassment for being associated with what many call anti-intellectual arguments. It is for me. Really? we do? to anyone and everyone? I don't mind if the owner of the board uses my words, but I'd be pretty upset if another poster was copying stuff from here to elsewhere. Sure, it might happen and you have to be careful. But that doesn't mean the people writing here have "given permission" to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.