How Twitter moderated the Covid debate • Hacker News Board

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#321

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

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.

Or, stay with me here, my idea is crazy bonkers... they could just not censor alternate viewpoints that are accurate and factual?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#322

Post by refurb » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:36 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."

That's dishonest, look at most of the interactions highlighted in the article, they were from the Biden administration.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#323

Post by EdwardDiego » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:36 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

> In 2021, Weiss compared her own professional travails to Galileo Galilei, an Italian scientist who was threatened with being burnt at the stake if he did not renounce his scientific views.

Oh, wow.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#324

Post by spritefs » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:36 AM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #316

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…

If people don't trust a system that raised them, there are inherent flaws with the system that it is either unable or unwilling to address

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#325

Post by BryantD » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:37 AM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #180

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 disagree. Anti-vax movements have been around for as long as there have been vaccines. The only thing that "solves" this problem is a new disease and vaccines that completely displaces the old. Think about it: when was the last time, since the pandemic began, that you heard about autism and the MMR vaccine? that began in the late 90s (with no scientific basis I might add) and persisted for decades. Now no one talks…

It’s the same people, though. RFK Jr. pivoted and incorporated anti-Covid vax rhetoric into the rest of his platform, and that’s bringing the anti-Covid vax conspiracists into the autism myth fold. And the existing anti-vax community fed into QAnon, as well documented by Marc-André Argentino[1].

This is the tricky problem. Trusting the marketplace of ideas works if everyone who participates is interested in spending the time needed to evaluate claims.

[1] https://gnet-research.org/2021/03/17/pastel-qanon/

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#326

Post by EdwardDiego » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:38 AM UTC

kodyo wrote: post #71

batch12 wrote: post #16

A tangent: this domain seems to have an abnormal number of flagged articles. It made me wonder if there's something like shadowbans for domains here and if so, what are the criteria?

HN readers lean toward the establishment narratives.

Or, they apply less weight to fringe narratives, because, well, gestures at Internet.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#327

Post by JSavageOne » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:39 AM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #87

matheusmoreira wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one uses unmoderated platforms. Twitter has a fiduciary duty to make sure their platform has a good reputation with users and advertisers. That means moderation.

Twitter as a public platform has a duty to uphold freedom of speech and not censor viewpoints it doesn't like.

Amazing that people in a country founded on free speech are trying to defend censorship.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#328

Post by throwawaaarrgh » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:39 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.

The American public lost faith in all those institutions in the 1970s. COVID didn't make a dent. Hell, we already stopped trusting science in general well before COVID-19. Our authority figures are largely ignored in favor of whoever shouts the loudest and angriest. We elect maniacal buffoons from TV rather than experienced, trustworthy, decent human beings (and again, that started in the 80s).

People will always swallow a magic pill that fixes all their problems. What changes is the form the pill takes and who's selling it.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#329

Post by jounker » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:41 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #182

AustinDev wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin Saga? You distrusted the 'conspiracy theorists' who took a perfectly safe drug that had been taken in the billions of doses a year prior? It was known as a possible protease inhibitor and was very safe to take. Where was the misinformation in what I just posted?

The problem with ivermectin wasn't safety, but efficacy. If you have worms, ivermectin is great for you! Take it! All the studies that showed ivermectin's effectiveness against Covid happened to be from countries with low levels of sanitation. The kinds of places where people are likely to suffer from worms without knowing it. If you have worms and Covid, and take deworming medicine, guess what? You're more likely to…

If I could upvote this 1000 times, then I would.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#330

Post by Zpalmtree » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:41 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #69

AustinDev wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read the thread or listen to the discussions surrounding it. The point of the evidence supplied in the thread is that leading virologists and epidemiologists were actively suppressed by non-experts.

[flagged]

the news isn't real because they have other articles that don't agree with my politics okay bro