How Twitter moderated the Covid debate • Hacker News Board

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#271

Post by wmf » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:46 AM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #33

stevebmark wrote: post #22

I don't really care about a private company making reasonable decisions and learning about their internal debate process. Up until Musk, I was impressed to see Twitter grow a backbone and not fall to the cowardly cries of "free speech." What I don't follow is the jump some people make from reasonable moderation like this, to fascism. They see internet platform moderation as a gateway drug to a physically oppressive g…

There are very real people who have been harmed by side effects from the vaccine. Whether the virus itself would've been more deadly is a question for another time, but if your loved ones were unlucky enough to get myocarditis from the vaccine, and you were silenced on social media, sometimes invisibly like you're being gaslit, and so were the doctors and researchers, it's easier to understand the strong emotional re…

Side effects you say? Obligatory reminder that millions (maybe over 10 million) of anti-vaxers have long covid.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#272

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:49 AM UTC

seneca wrote: post #258

88913527 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you supposed to communicate 1 in 10^7 chance of anything happening versus communicating it's risk-free. The public isn't educated well enough to ascertain the difference. College-educated members of society sure, but what about the rest? Health messaging has to be broadly applicable. Most people won't have an issue, so it's simplest to convey this idea.

Sorry, are you suggesting that people without a college education are too ignorant to make judgements about their own health and that it's therefore ok to lie to them? This sort of high handed paternalism is exactly the attitude that has destroyed faith in institutions.

[deleted]

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#273

Post by matheusmoreira » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:50 AM UTC

losteric wrote: post #216

matheusmoreira wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm still waiting for everyone to drop dead from vaccine related injuries I didn't have to wait at all. There was a noticeable increase in thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination started in my city. Plenty of people were saved by friends in the emergency room. The problem of course is not the vaccines, it's this insistence that they are risk-free. They are not. There is no such thing as zero risk in medici…

> There was a noticeable increase in thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination started in my city. Plenty of people were saved by friends in the emergency room. Thromboembolic events are a common side effect of COVID-19, and vaccine roll out often led to infection surges as the sense of normality returned before full immunity.

Those events also happened in patients reporting full isolation.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#274

Post by jakear » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:51 AM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #251

jakear wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like here, where someone posting a literal screenshot of the CDC's own data was deemed "misleading" and prohibited from being interacted with? https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...

Like you said to me, make a clear point. This is a screen shot without any context. How am I supposed to respond?

The context is in the article, which that image is pulled from. The image itself directly contradicts your claim: "The people posting on Twitter are just riling up, a virtual riot. You want to discuss it, do it calmy and write soemthing well thought out with sources", as an example of a well thought out, sourced, discussion that was nonetheless prohibited for not aligning with Central Authority's directives.

My argument, as it has been this entire thread, is that the Government should not be pressuring companies to prohibit such discussions. Since you asked, I recommend you respond with a counterargument supporting the Governments prohibition of the linked content.

That said, this is already too much beating of a dead thread for me. I don't expect to be able to convince you that the Government shouldn't be in control of how people are allowed to talk, and you certainly wont convince me of the opposite.

Good day.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#275

Post by foota » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:51 AM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #177

twblalock wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were censored early in the pandemic for saying that wearing masks was a good idea, and a number of other things that are now widely accepted as true.

Another excellent example of retconning. Who specifically was censored for saying that?

I don't know about censored, but from what I remember there was a bit of an about face on masking. This timeline seems to mesh with what I remember: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd...

And I think some platforms (specifically, I believe YouTube and Twitter, but maybe others) prevented or de-funded etc., content that was contradictory to CDC guidelines.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#276

Post by wmf » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:51 AM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #235

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 o…

I agree with Twitter's decisions but... where did it get us? Covid denial still exists and now it has a bonus persecution complex due to Twitter's moderation. Clearly debating with crackpots doesn't work but shutting down the debate doesn't work either.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#277

Post by AustinDev » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:55 AM UTC

VagueMag wrote: post #220

belltaco wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what would you call things like the QAnon theories? If you didn't believe them that is.

Disinformation. In the case of QAnon I'd go one further and call it a psyop. The idea that it's all just a big laugh carried out by Jim Watkins or some 8chan randos is risible.

Was def some sort of psyop.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#278

Post by tayo42 » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:55 AM UTC

jakear wrote: post #270

tayo42 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've decided that speech that is harmful is not allowed. Encouraging people to not get a vaccine we decided is harmful speech. Like telling you to kill your self, or the yelling fire in a theater. Are you not OK with that example of speech though? Dangerous speech seems to make you uncomfortable no?

> Encouraging people to not get a vaccine we decided is harmful speech. Who is "we"? I sure as hell haven't decided that. The supreme court hasn't either, unlike in the examples you mention. And my only discomfort with your example sprung from its severe lack of adroitness. My prior response could be roughly translated to "try harder".

Why do you think you get to decide what is harmful. What is your credential? Are you an elected policy maker, publish anything about vaccines or virus? Just another shit talker on a message board?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#279

Post by matheusmoreira » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 4:58 AM UTC

seneca wrote: post #258

88913527 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you supposed to communicate 1 in 10^7 chance of anything happening versus communicating it's risk-free. The public isn't educated well enough to ascertain the difference. College-educated members of society sure, but what about the rest? Health messaging has to be broadly applicable. Most people won't have an issue, so it's simplest to convey this idea.

Sorry, are you suggesting that people without a college education are too ignorant to make judgements about their own health and that it's therefore ok to lie to them? This sort of high handed paternalism is exactly the attitude that has destroyed faith in institutions.

That's exactly what they are suggesting, unfortunately. I was about to reply to another comment but I think it was deleted. I think what I wrote is important enough to post here anyways.

> It's obvious the messaging landed on was chosen was to maximize the individual choice to vaccinate as that was reasoned to the best possible outcome for all.

This is inducing people to pick the choice you consider correct. This is unethical in the medical profession. Ethical conduct is to present the facts and let the patient decide. You don't "maximize" any outcome, nor do you "reason" about anything on behalf of the patient. To do so means you are prioritizing concerns other than your patient's best interests and once they figure this out you are done.

If necessary, you can and must use simpler language to help them understand complex concepts. What you cannot do is decide for them in advance and then misrepresent facts in order to manufacture consent for the intervention you favor.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#280

Post by a_bonobo » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:00 AM UTC

rqtwteye wrote: post #217

a_bonobo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Covid (and all the anti-vax grift around it) was the last straw, exploiting fears that were constructed by a cutthroat for-profit health system. It reminds me of this recent quote from Cory Doctorow: >We’ve had massive institutional failures that make people not believe anything. We focus a lot on the technical mechanics of why people don’t believe anything. Ten years ago, my pain specialist wanted me to go o…

The for profit health system has a ton of problems and should be abandoned but it’s not the reason why people lost their minds over Covid. Germany has a better health system (for normal earners. The US system is great for wealthy people) but still has a ton of anti vaxxers and Covid deniers.

I feel Germany is a slightly different beast as a large part of the anti-vax crowd in Germany seems to recruit itself from left-ish/Green corner of politics, the people who've been anti-Monsanto for decades. It's not a far jump from there to anti-vax (it's all big US companies etc.)