Half the comments are removed lol

/r/science is notorious for their stringent moderation. I went on unddit.com to see what was removed and it was mostly comments with only anecdotal evidence, which is not allowed on /r/science.

That's how you get a good discussion on Reddit.

/r/science tightly controls comments to eliminate anything that doesn't add to the discussion.

Yeah. Their rules are even tighter than HN's rules.

Which, on a sub like that, it makes sense. They really don't want anecdotal evidence in a sub for discussing rigorous research and testing.

... good discussion on ... Reddit ...

There is a very common elitist sentiment here that HN good; reddit bad. Certain subreddits like /r/Science have VERY strict moderation that lead to a high quality discussion and community. /r/Science is a much better place to have this discussion than somewhere else where "I saw the vaccine is bad on Substack" comments get voted to the top.

I'm actually a long time redditor and used to agree with you. However it has actually become entirely impossible to have conversations on reddit at this point even in the non-standard niche subreddits and the random banning by admin has become insane.

Reddit : Digg :: <waiting> : Reddit

Reddit used to be a place where you could discuss things candidly. It feels like a form of high tea nowadays. It's boring and bland and full of increasingly bizarre litmus tests leading to bans.

I don't really care whether HN is better or not. What I'm saying is that Reddit is not even anywhere in my list of places to have discussions. I wouldn't even bother add "reddit" to a google search anymore.

I don't think it's an elitest HN sentiment. Redditors commonly lambast the quality of discussion on Reddit.

A good number of every communities members thinks their community sucks.

Yeah, I appreciated this post:

> Oh joy, another paper for the antivaxxers to misinterpret. Some red flags though.

> The tone of this paper, particularly the last sentence ("potentially harmful effects") seems suspect...almost as if they were intentionally riling up the anti-vax crowd.

> They appear to have misinterpreted the outcome of this study, claiming "higher risk of infection than unvaccinated individuals 9 months post-vaccination". The study makes no such claim that I can find. The tables in the supplement show the only subcohorts with a slightly higher incidence rate for vaccinated individuals at 9 months is age >80 (1.3 per 100,000 person days in vaxxed vs. 1.1 unvaxxed, supplemental table 5) and those requiring in-home care (1.6 vs. 1.5). Also notable is that the only vaccine that shows less effectiveness against infection is the non-MRNA vaccine (supplemental table 6) and that vaccinated individuals in all subcohorts were still substantially protected against hospitalization or death compared to unvaxxed.

> The primary source for the claim that mRNA-LNP is inflammatory is a paper authored by three of the four authors of this paper.

> Also notable is that at least one of the primary authors - the one credited with writing and editing - is a GBD-adjacent, anti-MRNA, HCQ truther (Don’t Look Up” Your Science—Herd Immunity or Herd Mentality? - "The virus fatality rate did not support lockdowns, blanket restrictive measures, and non-selective mass vaccinations. There was no solid scientific rationale to adopt the untested mRNA-LNP platform over other well-established vaccine formulations to fight COVID.").

> None of this means the science in the paper is wrong, but I'd be hesitant to take anything at face value.