How Twitter moderated the Covid debate • Hacker News Board

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#311

Post by EdwardDiego » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:29 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.

They're also caused by Covid infection. Which makes sense, if the spike proteins produced by the vaccine cause these issues, then so do the spike proteins produced by the virus.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#312

Post by fells » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:30 AM UTC

petmon wrote: post #173

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #83

Imagine if this was Trump. That for me puts the reaction in tech circles in perspective. We would see two impeachments, wall to wall news coverage, protests by employees at Facebook, Apple and Google, all asking for deplatforming everyone associated and so much more. Its ridiculous that we're unable as a society to separate actions from political affiliation.

Imagine if what were Trump? Per the article, the Trump administration sought "help from the tech companies to combat misinformation."

They live in this alternate universe where the COVID pandemic didn't involve Trump at all.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#313

Post by spritefs » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:31 AM UTC

The craziness surrounding covid was somewhat predictable

Here in the US (and likely other places), you have a pharma industry shoving amphetamines and antidepressants in people's faces. You have a complacent government that's too lazy, corrupt, and incompetent to address this obvious wrong (among many others)

So because of this, people already don't trust the pharma industry or govt. Can I blame them? Not really. At the same time, you have elderly refusing vaccination and dying because of this lack of trust. You have parents refusing to vaccinate children for things like measles

So tl;dr you have a system that has systematically eroded trust over the years and has been unable to self correct, and people on some level know that they're getting screwed. And you have an incompetent government that refuses to take responsibility for this lack of trust and only knows how to redirect blame elsewhere. What could possibly go wrong here?

edit: I'm not saying that the government is irredeemably bad, I'm saying that as of right now the current generation of politicians have failed to do their due diligence regarding pharma screwing people over (e.g. price of insulin)

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#314

Post by EdwardDiego » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:32 AM UTC

tootie wrote: post #215

lmm wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At least HN doesn't filter COVID disinformation. Your first paragraph is all incorrect. Patent-free treatments were extensively tested and some (notably dexamethasone) were put into treatment regimens for a while but none proven effective. "Corporate" vaccines were very effective and I'm not sure what alternative you're thinking of (artisanal vaccines? Maybe Sinovac?) but either way it's irrelevant. Twitter is just a…

"I developed this organic artisanal vaccine when my organic kombucha brewed entirely using my beard yeast took an unexpected turn..."

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#315

Post by befeltingu » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:32 AM UTC

CharlesW wrote: post #38

jklm wrote: post #23

Relevant context - this was written by a member of the team who released the Twitter files, alongside Matt Tabibi.

Also, readers should know that The Free Press is Bari Weiss¹. Vanity Fair described her as "a provocateur", which is the kindest-possible interpretation of her editorial philosophy. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss

Oh well if Vanity Fair says it then it must be so

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#316

Post by yongjik » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:32 AM UTC

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.

Maybe in the US, but not worldwide. When you compare, countries where citizens trusted the government and generally followed the government's plans fared better than countries where individuals fought for their rights to choose what they think was best for them.

IMHO Covid demonstrated the importance of trust in the system. When people trust the system, and think of the society as something they need to work together to maintain, they tend to come out better. Even after their governments did make many bad decisions.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#317

Post by solarpunk » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:33 AM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #59

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 don't know. It should (and I think has) increase distrust in social media and big tech/gov but distrust in pharma? I don't know. I'm still waiting for everyone to drop dead from vaccine related injuries (I've paid this more earnest attention than most people this glib at least) — most people, I think correctly for the most part, regard the nu-antivax thing that came about during covid to basically be the realm of i…

man, skip talking about the vaccines, what about the refusal to simply utilize MASKS???

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#318

Post by Zpalmtree » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:33 AM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #261

rajin444 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a worrisome development. Governments are working with private corporations to promote misinformation and silence real information and you’re worried about…anti vaxxers? I can maybe steel man a utilitarian stance for this position though I’m afraid it’s weak to “surely the lepers won’t eat my face”.

> promote misinformation and silence real information "misinformation" and "real information" as rationally believed at the time or only with 20/20 hindsight? It's an important distinction. Also, what about the recommendations that did stand the test of time, or the misinformation about vaccine risks and alternative treatments that was rightly suppressed because it was false and harmful? If this is to be anything but…

Oops, we suppressed correct info, but it's not our fault, we didn't know it was correct!

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#319

Post by EdwardDiego » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:33 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #42

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.

Whoosh, you missed the satire.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#320

Post by jakear » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:34 AM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #304

jakear wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argum…

Where was the government involved? > Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, Which then was reviewed by some support staff. This is actually all in the article What you read is misinformation designed to muddy the water and get you riled up by making this look partisan. You and others are falling for it. This article is intentially being emotional like this.

Do you think that bot magically sprung itself into existence? Or is it more likely that it was written by a human, as ordered by a human, in response to well-documented (also in the article) pressure from the White House to prohibit the spread of what they considered "misinformation"?

Do you think the "support staff" were acting of their own volition, or did they have orders from above about how content should be handled? You don't need to answer this - the article shows they had a flow chart to follow, created by the same folks who were being pressured by the White House.