by ROBBY SOAVE
Facebook made a quiet but dramatic reversal last week: It no longer forbids users from touting the theory that COVID-19 came from a laboratory.
“In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps,” the social media platform declared in a statement.
This change in policy comes in the midst of heated debate about how to respond to the perception that social media is amplifying the spread of false information. For the last several years, journalists and politicians have pushed to police so-called misinformation through various means. Major news organizations have hired mis- or disinformation reporters. Lawmakers such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) have urged social media sites to prohibit speech deemed wrong or dangerous—and have sometimes suggested that this should be required by law. More recently, various groups have asked President Joe Biden to establish a federal initiative to combat online misinformation.
But Facebook’s concession that the lab leak story it once viewed as demonstrably false is actually possibly true should put to rest the idea that banning or regulating misinformation should be a chief public policy goal.
It’s one thing to discuss, debate, and correct wrong ideas, and both tech companies and media have roles to play in fostering healthy public dialogue. But Team Blue’s recent obsession with rendering unsayable anything that clashes with its preferred narrative is the height of hubris. The conversation should not be closed by the government and its yes-men in journalism, in tech, or even in public health.
From False Claim to Live Possibility
Consider that Facebook’s new declaration sits atop its About page, just above the site’s previous policy on coronavirus-related misinformation—dated February 8, 2021—which was to vigorously purge so-called “false claims,” including the notion that the disease “is man-made or manufactured.” The mainstream media had deemed this notion not merely wrong but dangerously absurd, and tech companies followed suit, suppressing it to the best of their abilities.
“Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked,” read a February 2020 Washington Post article that criticized the Arkansas senator for departing from the prevailing narrative. Similarly, Politico both mischaracterized Cotton’s claims and said the rumor was “easily debunked within three minutes.”
But in recent weeks, the lab leak theory—the idea that COVID-19 inadvertently escaped from a laboratory, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology—has gained some public support among experts. In March, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) chief Robert Redfield said that he bought the theory. (His admission earned him death threats; most of them came from fellow scientists.) Nicholson Baker, writing in New York, and Nicholas Wade, formerly of The New York Times, both wrote articles that accepted the lab leak as equally if not more plausible than the idea that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans in the wild (or at a wet market). Even Anthony Fauci, the White House’s coronavirus advisor and an early critic of the lab leak theory, now concedes it shouldn’t be ruled out as a possibility.
This has forced many in the media to eat crow. Matthew Yglesias, formerly of Vox, assailed mainstream journalism’s approach to lab leak as a “fiasco.” The Post rewrote its February headline, which now refers to the lab leak as a “fringe theory that scientists have disputed” rather than as a debunked conspiracy theory. New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait noted that a few ardent opponents of lab leak “with unusually robust social-media profiles” had used Twitter—the preferred medium of progressive politicos and journalists—to promote the idea that any dissent on this subject was both wrong and a sign of racial bias against Asian people.
“Story after story depicted the lab-leak hypothesis as clearly false and even racist,” wrote Chait. “The outlets that fared worst were those like the Guardian, Slate, and Vox (which is owned by the same company that owns New York Media), which embraced a ‘moral clarity’ ethos of forgoing traditional journalistic norms of restraint and objectivity in favor of calling out lies and bigotry.”
To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else. (Moreover, there is considerable confusion about whether the U.S. government was funding the sort of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that could have produced COVID-19.) The Chinese government has stymied efforts to investigate the origins of the disease, and it’s possible the world will never know the truth.
But many lab-leak foes had not merely called the theory unproven. They had lobbied for the theory’s adherents to be effectively silenced. They asserted that anyone discussing it was a conspiracy theorist or even a racist. Indeed, some are still discouraging this conversation.
“I & other AAPIs are increasingly concerned that speculation over the lab leak theory will increase anti-Asian hate,” tweeted Leana Wen, a professor of public health and CNN medical analyst, earlier this week. “As we embark on a full scientific investigation, we must take actions to prevent the next escalation of anti-Asian racism.”
She did not explain why speculation about the lab leak theory would increase anti-Asian hate to a more appreciable degree than speculation about the wet market theory. The idea is counterintuitive: The lab leak theory indicts a handful of individual scientists and the Chinese government, whereas the wet market theory can be used to indict broader Asian cultural traditions that have often been criticized in the West. And while an apparent surge in anti-Asian hate crimes is at this point taken for granted among professional pundits and politicians, its extent and underlying causes are far from clear. For instance, the Atlanta spa killings are often cited as the prime example of the lethal nature of anti-Asian bias, but no definitive evidence has emerged thus far that racism was a conscious motivating factor in the shootings.
Yet it’s clear that a certain segment of lab-leak critics believed two things: 1) the theory would fan the flames of racism, and 2) for that reason, it should be proactively censored. Such is the slipperiness of the misinformation label, which has come to include all sorts of claims that are not straightforwardly false.
When ‘Misinformation’ Turns Out To Be True
What’s true of the debate over COVID-19’s origins is also true of countless other policy disputes. When The New York Post published a report on Hunter Biden’s efforts to lobby his father on behalf of foreign governments, the media pressured everyone to pretend the story did not even exist. Journalists who did share the article on social media were shamed for doing so, and the uniform assertions that the paper had fallen prey to a Russian disinformation campaign swiftly persuaded both Facebook and Twitter to throttle the story. Later, when it became evident that the information undergirding the story (if not all its conclusions) was accurate, tech companies were forced to admit their error. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has apologized repeatedly.
“the lab leak theory—the idea that COVID-19 inadvertently escaped from a laboratory, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology—has gained some public support”
I very much doubt that there was anything at all “inadvertent” about the SARS-CoV-2 virus getting out of the lab in Wuhan. The idea that the virus “escaped” sets off every alarm my bullshite detector has. I strongly suspect that this was a trial run; a proof of concept to see how well a modified virus would spread. It is entirely possible to make a virus with an affinity for cell markers common in a specific subspecies (one dare not refer to something that used to be called “race”) of human. It would not be totally foolproof but it could be devastating. A virus targeting caucasians would likely hit blacks and possibly even the odd Asian but depending upon how virulent and how transmissible the virus was the result could result in massive casualties in Europe and the Americas. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has proven it can turn an animal virus into one that is transmissible in humans. Now it remains to work on making it more deadly and at the same time more easily spread.The problem with bioweapons back in the 20th century was they could not be targeted with sufficient accuracy. If anything the whole Covid debacle has proven that at least some target specificity is possible. If I were the honchos in China I’d be rubbing my hands together in anticipation of ridding myself of those pesky caucasians.
Censorship itself is bad enough, but having those with a vested interest in keeping certain stories suppressed being the arbiters of “truth” is utter totalitarianism. How many times do we have to see vivid examples?
Having the leftist media constantly lying to protect the Democrats has led to widespread ignorance and even an acceptance widespread election fraud. But the ability to simply squash any discussion on supposedly open social media completes the circle; almost nowhere can anything but leftist propaganda be found.
We conservatives enjoy the benefit of seeing our beliefs and views reinforced by seeing, time after time, them vindicated as true. The left, on the other hand, has to keep having one lie replaced with another and another to make them forget the past lies.
Like election fraud, the primary factor providing validity to the idea that the Wuhan virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is the attempt by those who might suffer embarrassment… or worse… from the revelation that the virus leaked or was released from the WIV. They don’t try to provide evidence to the contrary, they simply forbid anyone of having that opinion. Just like election fraud.
If the concern was anti-Asian animus, then the racism should be addressed, not the truth suppressed. Unless, of course, the goal is to suppress the truth.
Democrats don’t want to prevent the spread of disinformation; they want to prevent INformation that exposes them from being spread.
While the public is told the preconceived COVID-19 pandemic is a calamity of unfolding proportion, that emanates from a deadly mutated virus that appears to have been “invented” in a laboratory and targets octogenarians in particular, and the proposed antidote is mandated vaccination that may have more heinous consequences than the virus itself, there is another faction that sees this catastrophe differently. Those who know what this pandemic is really all about – insurance actuaries.
mortality ratess: Italy-12.7%, Spain-11.4%, and the UK-19.5% Trillion-dollar bailout and stimulus legislation are reported by the news media, but not the precarious state of financial affairs overall. Flooding an economy with money generally ends up raising prices. Gasoline is above $4/gallon. Lumber is egregiously expensive. Shortages of meat and computer components are already being rigged. The objective is to drive the country into insolvency to the point where paper money is nearly worthless and the masses beg for digital currency.