> these people are just too dumb, selfish, or gullible to believe them

This argument has convinced people exactly never.

It's amazing how much name calling is on this thread and how few links to research.

Want people to listen? Show them compassion.

Want people to vaccinate? Give them great information from trusted sources.

Want people to dismiss you? Call them names.

If we want to increase adoption, then please silence yourself on this subject as you're doing more harm than good.

I frankly don't care to try to convince anti-vaxxers. You can't logic someone out of a strongly held belief that they didn't logic themselves into. If someone can seriously look at the breadth and depth of information on the subject -- available with even the most cursory search on the subject -- then they're lost. I think these people are child abusers and should absolutely be shamed.

I think you'd be surprised at how not strong their opinions are when you treat them like humans instead of shaming them like child abusers.

It sounds like there's a lot of hurt and anger around this subject.

Hopefully cooler heads can prevail at some point as I think our health is more important than name calling or putting people we haven't met in big negative buckets.

I was vaccine injured and it destroyed my life. I battled physically crippling pain and brain damage for over a decade.

I arrived at this conclusion after studying biochemistry for over a decade.

You think your "cursory" search is adequate to evaluate this problem? You think you can quickly Google complex problems and completely figure them out? That's weird. You seem to be the illogical superficial one.

I used to be a professional environmental engineer. There are real logical concerns with vaccines. Hardly any one will even listen to my logic, because most people are like you, who think it's logical to ignore logical arguments because you don't like it.

Pathetic. You're full of hate based on a "cursory" Google search.

Crossing into incivility will get you banned here. Please follow the site guidelines when posting to HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You seem to have reading comprehension trouble: it literally validated some of their claims (about censorship rather than response), but not others (about medical facts).

That said, your comment is an excellent demonstrating of my point: it's technically incorrect, and focuses on shaming me for my opinion while lacking a substantive reply.

The idea that demonetization is equivalent to censorship needs to go away.

That idea is the same thing as believing that advertisers are obligated to show ads on your content, which is obviously wrong.

1. Demonetization absolutely is a form of censorship, you are making it more difficult to express yourself and limiting that expression to people who can afford to go to the lengths required, that means that some speech is becoming limited.

2. Google is a private company and has no obligation to support free speech on their platform.

But! Society is shifting to view recorded video as an expression of speech, and view facebook as a forum of ideas. These companies likely should be shifted to fall under carrier laws as they are a method for communication.

> recorded video as an expression of speech

Far as I can see they still have the same ability to speak to the world as they ever did. All that changed is they won't profit from spouting lies.

It's not more difficult to upload a video, it's not more difficult to view it. Their ability to express their view has not changed in the slightest. If they cannot afford an internet connection of any form (that's vanishingly few these days), well they can get a soapbox, go down to the local park, and express their view in the traditional way.

> you are making it more difficult to express yourself

First of all, I think phrasing matters here. "Making it more difficult to express yourself" makes it sound like someone is going out of their way to make it more difficult. What is actually happening is youtube deciding "not to go out of their way to make it easier".

When phrased like you said it, and you claim it is censorship, that makes it seem like youtube is obligated to pay you money for expressing your views. Do you not see how absurd that is?

Setting that aside, it's a lot easier for Sean Hannity to express his viewpoint than it is for me. My speech is much more limited than Sean Hannity's. Am I being censored? Is Fox obligated to give me a prime time TV show to express my opinion?