Anti-vaxxers are wrong but that does not mean that Pinterest is right

Pinterest has blocked vaccine research to censor scientifically proven and scientifically refuted claims that are dangerous. You may think that this policy is essential and that other platforms should do the same. For me, however, it seems to be a move straight out of Big Brother's playbook; one more step towards an Orwellian future to which none of us has subscribed.

On one side, you have the anti-vaxxers (Jim Carrey, Alicia Silverstone, Kat Von D and Donald Trump all expressed such views). These people claim that vaccines are not safe and cause more serious health problems to children later. This is a hot topic that has been the subject of much debate and has been widely flouted by scientists around the world. "Anti-Vaxxers" even appear on the World Health Organization's list of the top 10 health threats for 2019. On the other hand, large companies try to monitor and control our conversations.

Do not forget that the links between the MMR vaccine and autism have been the subject of much research and have proven to be false. So I'm not here to give you the time to say whether immunizations are safe or not. But I am here to discuss the fact that the idea of ​​a social media company trying to censor the Internet is something that makes me very uncomfortable.

Already, we live in our own personal bubbles online. Our streams are constantly inundated with topics that algorithms have deduced (often wrongly) that interest us the most. We reside in an echo chamber, a space between our own personal realities and the truth of the universe, something that gets further and further away every day, thanks to this world-oriented data (not to sound too dramatic or anything).

Ifeoma Ozoma, Public Policy and Social Impact Leader of Pinterest, told the the Wall Street newspaper of the decision: "Better not to serve these results than to lead people to what looks like a recommendation rabbit."

But what's the difference, when do you always dictate what kind of content is in the hole?

A spokesperson for the social media network said Fortune"We have begun to block some research related to vaccination and cancer treatment because the results have led to harmful misinformation."

I understood. Social networks have already paved the way for the proliferation of misinformation, misinformation and government-run propaganda. But I have two questions: why do not they do something to tackle this problem first? And once you start censoring specific topics, where does it end?

Some people praised Pinterest's decision and accused other platforms of not doing enough to stop the spread of this type of misinformation. Facebook said Bloomberg that he is exploring "the reduction or removal of this type of content in the recommendations, including the groups that you should join, and downgrade it in the search results, while ensuring that information of better quality and more reliable are available. " to do exactly the same thing as Pinterest without actually blocking the content. That does not go to the heart of the matter.

In the end, people will always find a way to share their conspiracy theories, be it on Pinterest, on another platform or even in person (what a thought). Censoring the conversation is not, in my opinion, the role of the social media network.

Yes, the spread of unhealthy "facts" is a problem. Yes, it is clearly necessary to educate the public about what is real and fake online. And, yes, social media networks have a responsibility to make sure that happens, alongside government and medical authorities.

Pinterest has called this content "polluted", using a term so broad that it can be the subject of many interpretations. Today is vaccination, but what about tomorrow?

It will not be long before we all talk in Newspeak, that we think twice and that we are guilty of crime-thought (read 1984 George Orwell, if this reference leaves you puzzled).