Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

thefp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#41

Post by myko »

xqcgrek2 wrote: post #21

What is the realistic legal recourse for those who were censored from pressure by the US government? Sue the relevant agencies or executive branch? Will anyone even go to prison or lose their job?

> Will anyone even go to prison or lose their job?

Why would they? This is another nothingburger, Musk is just seeking attention for the sake of attention. If that means echoing antivax bullshit, or trying to make sure Hunter Biden's penis is available for all to see on the internet, that's what he will do.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#42

Post by matheusmoreira »

CharlesW wrote: post #17

> "Yet it was deemed “false information” by Twitter moderators merely because it differed from CDC guidelines." Obviously, Twitter should not have followed CDC guidelines. They should have created their own healthcare group in charge of evaluating which CDC guidelines coming out of the Trump and Biden administrations were correct and which were not, based on blue-check user surveys.

No need. All they have to do is remain neutral and avoid "moderating" at all.

Just because the CDC said something does not automatically make it true. It's a valuable authority but it's not the Ministry of Truth. People are allowed to question and contradict it.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#43

Post by meowtimemania »

xqcgrek2 wrote: post #21

What is the realistic legal recourse for those who were censored from pressure by the US government? Sue the relevant agencies or executive branch? Will anyone even go to prison or lose their job?

If the government pressures a platform to censor information I would think that goes against freedom of speech or maybe freedom of the press

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#44

Post by birdymcbird »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #24
CharlesW wrote: post #17

> "Yet it was deemed “false information” by Twitter moderators merely because it differed from CDC guidelines." Obviously, Twitter should not have followed CDC guidelines. They should have created their own healthcare group in charge of evaluating which CDC guidelines coming out of the Trump and Biden administrations were correct and which were not, based on blue-check user surveys.

I can't even tell if this is sarcasm anymore.

if you start with a fundamental premise that CDC and government are 100% unbiased sources of truth, then you’ll believe this story isn’t really a story. america is so polarized that if your party is doing something dirty it’s didnt happen or if it did it’s totally justified.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#45

Post by tayo42 »

jakear wrote: post #30
CharlesW wrote: post #17

> "Yet it was deemed “false information” by Twitter moderators merely because it differed from CDC guidelines." Obviously, Twitter should not have followed CDC guidelines. They should have created their own healthcare group in charge of evaluating which CDC guidelines coming out of the Trump and Biden administrations were correct and which were not, based on blue-check user surveys.

Downvoted because it completely misses the point, which is that a private company should not be told by the government to restrict speech, even if ( especially if) that speech is in conflict with the "official policy" the government has decreed. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the ri…

Free speach isn't absolute. There's plenty of examples in life already where you can't say whatever you want.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#49

Post by jaxelr »

flavius29663 wrote: post #39
myko wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> insane conspiracy bullshit If it's proven true, is it still conspiracy?

The problem is there’s a lot of conjecture concerning intentions and thats basically unprovable.

Some parts feel sensationalized for the sake of theater.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#50

Post by dannyw »

tayo42 wrote: post #31
bmarquez wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are these random people not participating in actual research?or writers for real publications? The author of the article wrote for the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, and Wired. Are those not real publications?

I mean the people on Twitter the article is writing about > KelleyKga, a self-proclaimed public health fact checker > Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician, This article is just trying to get people outraged by making it an us vs them trying to make this look like it wasn't a fringe view at the time. > American left, the political affiliation of nearly the entire staff at Twitter. Political outrage porn pretending…

How do you state it's a fringe view when the viewpoint was actively being suppressed by everyone?

You've chosen a few examples where the posters didn't have strong credentials - how about the Harvard professor?

Post reply on HN