Live data from Hacker News

How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

thefp.com

331–340 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#331
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ???

If you have them...

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#332

This is what we get when we expect corporations to police speech, and when governments pressure them to do it. We really would be better off with no censorship. Even allowing obvious conspiracy theories and fake news is better than trying to police the truth and getting it wrong. When moderators get it wrong even one time they lose trust forever and give the conspiracy theorists even more ammo — in some cases by maki…

You are mistaking social media companies as platforms for speech. The are not. They are for profit companies that must police their content to attain maximum ad revenue. They will curate, filter and edit content solely for that purpose. I don’t know why everyone is so up in arms about what Twitter does on their website. If it vanished tomorrow, I’d be fine. Most of us knew what was going in the 90’s just fine.

Social media companies try to portray themselves legally as platforms in order to eliminate legal liability for the content that users post on their platform.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#333
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And if they are acting with good intent. But some people really would like to see the world burn and there are enough of them that they can do real damage. All those conspiracies originate somewhere and quite a few of those people are well aware of the fact that what they are doing will cause damage.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#334

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…

if you keep getting the facts wrong in hindsight, maybe you should be more open to considering other opinions instead of censoring them

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#335
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our government, and the moderators at Twitter, lumped reasonable skeptics in the same category as grifter-anti-vax types (i.e., people pushing zinc, or colloidal silver, or chiropractic as "cures" for covid). People who had reasonable questions--like "why do some countries consider recovery from COVID as being equivalent to being vaccinated while the US doesn't" or people who were skeptical that loose-fitting cloth m…

> People who had reasonable questions--like "why do some countries consider recovery from COVID as being equivalent to being vaccinated while the US doesn't" or people who were skeptical that loose-fitting cloth masks that most people wore below their nose did more good than harm--were de-platformed along with the true quacks. Experienced doctors with specific expertise in infectious disease were deplatformed for que…

> the complaints about moderation didn’t feature such sympathetic cases rather than the usual suspects

Jay Battacharya[1][2] of the Great Barrington Declaration fame - is he a usual case? From [3]:

> In October 2020, Collins criticized the Great Barrington Declaration's "focused protection" herd immunity strategy, calling it "a fringe component of epidemiology. This is not mainstream science. It's dangerous. It fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment." In a private email to Fauci, Collins called the authors of the declaration "fringe epidemiologists" and said that "There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises". The Wall Street Journal's editorial board accused Collins of "work[ing] with the media to trash the Great Barrington Declaration." and of "Shut[ting] Down Covid Debate".

Here's a bit more from the WSJ article[4] mentioned:

> In public, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins urge Americans to “follow the science.” In private, the two sainted public-health officials schemed to quash dissenting views from top scientists. That’s the troubling but fair conclusion from emails obtained recently via the Freedom of Information Act by the American Institute for Economic Research.

From a recent interview in Unherd[5]:

> And this all began when you joined Twitter in August 2021, many months after you had signed the “Great Barrington Declaration” speaking against lockdowns and calling for an alternative approach to the pandemic.

> That first day in August 2021 when I joined Twitter, apparently Twitter received a number of unspecified complaints about me. It’s not clear, from my time at Twitter headquarters, exactly from who. Their systems are not set up to answer that question very easily, although apparently people are looking into that. And that then induced Twitter to put me on this trends blacklist to make sure that my tweets didn’t reach a broad audience outside of my own network… It took somebody at Twitter — a human at Twitter had to think about it. The setting was then renewed repeatedly through 2021 and 2022.

Maybe deplatforming is not the same as having your Twitter account meddled with but it seems similar enough. There's also Martin Kulldorf[6][7]:

> Was Martin Kulldorff also on the Trends Blacklist?

> He had been, actually. His first placement on the trends blacklist was in July of 2020, when he was advocating for opening schools… He told me that what he was doing on Twitter was: whenever someone was mentioning that schools should close, he would post a link to the Swedish study that showed that when schools had opened in spring of 2020, no children had died and very few teachers had gotten sick relative to other workers in the population. He posted over and over and over, he said, and was more active on Twitter than at any other time. That’s exactly when the trends blacklist was applied on him, in July 2020. And then again, three more times in 2022. Although there was no active trends blacklist for Martin at the moment.

> Is it still active for you?

> It was still active when I was at Twitter. I hope it’s been removed. My tweets seem to go more viral nowadays.

Jay Bhattacharya is Professor of medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He directs Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.

Martin Kulldorff, PhD, is a biostatistician, epidemiologist and (edit: was until 2021) professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya

[2] https://profiles.stanford.edu/jay-bhattacharya

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#NIH_director

[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barr...

[5] https://unherd.com/2022/12/what-i-discovered-at-twitter-hq/

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Kulldorff

[7] https://www.dfhcc.harvard.edu/insider/member-detail/member/m...

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are as indeed as smart as you and your parent commenter say they are, then they will understand there doesn't exist any risk-free medical procedure. Having to remind of them of that fact is the kind of patronizing you both seem to be rallying against, after all. The argument could evolve further to say, the messaging doesn't matter at all, since everyone is smart enough to make their own choice, so why be u…

> Having to remind of them of that fact is the kind of patronizing you both seem to be rallying against, after all. Not really. You'd be surprised how many people believe that. They need to make informed choices. The way to do that is to say "the benefits are X and the risks are Y". If they have trouble understanding X or Y, you do whatever is necessary to help them understand. What you don't do is say "Oh COVID-19 v…

There's a difference between a national public health messaging and a 1:1 discussion with your physician, and I don't think you're reasonably distinguishing between the two. No politician would spend 60 minutes discussing how they'll do Big Goal X and here's the 40-point plan. Read the fact sheet if you want the details or talk to your doctor. I got a fact sheet and had to wait for my vaccine, so plenty of time to read and ask questions or change my mind. And your points about the forcing of vaccination, I don't recall any instance of forced covid vaccine injections. Yes, in a parent comment you linked to something terrible that happened in the 1900s. Lots of terrible things happened in history.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#337
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And they haven't stopped agitating. And probably won't stop. Which makes me wonder: with the degree of weaponization of the internet on the side of the anti-vaxxers will the next pandemic be 'the big one'? Enough people that refuse vaccination and you are looking at an entirely different probable outcome. Here in NL a small army of foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists did their utmost to undermine the vaccinatio…

I think in a weird way COVID 19 fell into a strange area of lethality. For those looking at population data, it was horrific, but on a personal level the worst outcomes were rare enough that many people could avoid encountering any deaths or even severe illness in their inner circles.

This made it rather easy to be an antivaxer, since people could just put their heads in the sand and remain blissfully ignorant of the scope of the disease. The deaths were just statistics, as were the benefits of vaccination.

I think in a more severe pandemic, where more people would be losing friends or loved ones, they wouldn't have the luxury of this ignorance and they would be lining up to get a vaccine.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#338

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…

if you keep getting the facts wrong in hindsight, maybe you should be more open to considering other opinions instead of censoring them

At the very least, GP, consider that you are not an epidemiologist or an MD, and that Twitter should not have censored such qualified individuals with unreliable and inconsistent "AI".

At Twitter, this technology was trained to parrot the U.S. CDC, over the legitimate objections and disagreements from their counterparts in the EU and WHO. As well as many others.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#339
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If these measures had actually lasted for only two weeks we'd hardly still be discussing them in the waning days of 2022.

You're still in quarantine?

The original comment I was replying to was implying 'two weeks to stop the spread' was a conspiracy.

Nice to see people downvoting me for a reasonable comment, while I can't downvote them. Typical for HN. Feel free to downvote this one.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#340
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The importance is that every free and democratic nation in the world has its’ policies influenced by the loudest voices on Twitter. So if Twitter amplifies an idea it becomes reality.

Does it really do that? Or is it just a distraction? All the noise from the Twitter didn’t stop Trump from giving his speech on Jan 6th. Biden didn’t backtrack on the pull out from Afghanistan because of Twitter. No gun bans. No end of drag show book time. I’d say it’s just a reflection of us, not our compass.

Quite a lot of people know what Trump tweeted, even though they never had Twitter accounts.

Sometimes it seemed like most of the news coverage of Trump consisted of news anchors reading his tweets on air. His tweets got a lot of the people into DC on the 6th to hear his speech in the first place.

Twitter is not just a distraction, sometimes it is the news.

Post reply on HN