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

231–240 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#231

Post by refurb »

myko wrote: post #55
flavius29663 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The biggest revelation from the previous dumps were that Joe Biden's team requested Twitter remove posts of Hunter Biden's nude body from the site, and they obliged. This is content moderation and completely reasonable. The latest revelation is that Twitter tried to keep antivax shit off the site. Everyone paying attention knew that was the case already, and was the right thing to do (Hacker News should do that, too)…

If that's the only thing you got from the article you should read it again.

Either you're deliberately being dishonest or didn't read the article.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#232

Post by 40amxn40 »

AustinDev wrote: post #25
RyanShook wrote: post #20

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I think the longest lasting legacy of covid will be the distrust it created for big government, big pharma, and big tech.

I am a conspiracy theorist[1], and this was all well known since before we even did '2 weeks to slow the spread'. I'm just glad some of the mainstream folks are figuring it out now. [1]: The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the subject of a conspiracy theory, which claims the term was popularized by the CIA in order to discredit conspiratorial believers, particularly critics of the Warren Commission, by making them…

[flagged]

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#233

Post by dibt »

VagueMag wrote: post #199
dibt wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> '2 weeks to slow the spread' Wasn't that to prevent over-crowding of hospitals? Were hospitals not over-crowded?

Aside from a few urban hospitals which were turned into COVID case dumping grounds in the early weeks, no, they weren't. Hospital employment tanked at the beginning of lockdowns and has only just recovered to pre-Covid levels: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES6562200001

It doesn't seem like you've said anything backed by facts.

The number of employees in hospitals dropping at the start of the pandemic supports that hospitals were under extra stress.

Also, it's logical to assume that a crowded and understaffed hospital is a bad place to be when there's an airborne disease spreading. Hard to argue against suggesting people do everything can to stay home for two weeks to not get a new under-researched disease in those conditions.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#234

Post by acdha »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #193
acdha wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> they’re far less dangerous than getting COVID Of course but that's not what authorities and all kinds of pro-vaccination people were saying at the time. General statements about safety don't inspire confidence. There's a possibility that the vaccines are beneficial for some groups but not others, for example. Even today in my country they do everything possible to coerce people into vaccination. They come just shor…

> Of course but that's not what authorities and all kinds of pro-vaccination people were saying at the time.

It most certainly was in the United States, starting with the initial vaccine availability notices and the information sheet you were given at the time.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#235

Post by notacoward »

It sounds a lot less nefarious when you consider that the "suppressed" views were believed at the time - and not without reason - to be both incorrect and harmful. The passage of time and 20/20 hindsight has revealed that some of the mainstream views were themselves incorrect, but if we're counting the hits for alternatives then we have to count the misses as well. Many claims about methods of transmission, dangers of vaccines, or efficacy of alternative treatments do not look any better in hindsight, and should not be forgotten. Being a "contrarian" or "devil's advocate" or whatever has still meant being wrong - and harmfully wrong - most of the time.

I'm not at all excusing anything that happened at Twitter or elsewhere. There's plenty to criticize, but these breathless accusations of ultimate evil are not only silly but hypocritical. If we're going to be harsh judges, let's not be one-sided about it. Plenty of the "opposition" deserve some pretty strong condemnation too, having made their own contributions to the death toll. I see way too many people here refusing even to talk about those failures, because of their own political leanings. Is this a site for curious inquiry, or pure political piling-on?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#236

Post by 40amxn40 »

idgaf4u wrote: post #187
laidoffamazon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I’m lead to believe Trump forced us to lock down. It’s good that now under the current president we no longer have lockdowns or restrictions.

[flagged]

We should unironically start our own hacker news.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#237

Post by tjpnz »

RyanShook wrote: post #20

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I think the longest lasting legacy of covid will be the distrust it created for big government, big pharma, and big tech.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist either but I do have considerably less respect for the WHO than I did before the pandemic. They seem more interested in playing politics and appeasing authoritarian regimes than putting out concrete policy on things which might actually help. Their back and forth on masking was an utter shambles, their stance on Taiwan a disgrace, their "fact finding" missions to China pointless and their Secretary General would often behave like an unhinged lunatic during press conferences.

I don't much care for his politics but David Cameron has some interesting ideas on how we can do better: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/covid-shows-new-global-virus-... .

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#239

Post by polygamous_bat »

kodyo wrote: post #142
myko wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read his thoughts, and while he makes good points he ignores the clear facts: - censoring Hunter Biden's nudes from the site was the right thing to do. - The laptop hoax had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and still seems likely to have been developed by the Russian government - banning trump was the right thing to do, he had just attempted a coup against the US (I also think banning dictators/aut…

Multiple independent investigations showed that the laptop story was accurate. Our intelligence agencies conspired to suppress it, knowing it was true. The FBI had the laptop for a year before the NY Post story.

The FBI, while under the Trump administration, was doing Biden's bidding?

Cool story.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#240

Post by acdha »

VagueMag wrote: post #210
acdha wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> far less dangerous than getting COVID Since the risk of COVID varies wildly by demographics, this leaves open the possibility that the vaccines are a poor risk/reward tradeoff for large numbers of the people it's being recommended to (essentially, everyone over 6 months old). And since they don't prevent COVID infection, "risk of vaccination" vs "risk of a COVID infection" is the wrong comparison to make in the fir…

They do prevent infection - not as effectively against the later variants but still notably - and the side effects which the right-wing media is stoking are indeed more common and more severe from an unvaccinated case of COVID than getting vaccinated:

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36419861/

Post reply on HN