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

441–450 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#441

Post by andy_ppp »

That we’re still debating this stuff is ridiculous, everyone seems to be trying to create a narrative out of actions performed with good intentions and imperfect information. I think Twitter and the press had an almost impossible job attempting to manage public health messaging. There does not need to be a red vs blue debate on this as if it’s some religious war. The way it’s debated verges on conspiracy theory to me.

I can’t believe how well Germany did with masking, testing and vaccination mandates to be able to take part in society again and consequently they have 1/3 fewer deaths than the comparably more open UK. A lot of people’s parents would still be with us if the UK and US weren’t divided and arguing about pointless stuff when we have loads of evidence the societies with more locking down and more extreme interventions saved more lives.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#442

Post by jacquesm »

groby_b wrote: post #306
a_bonobo wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

How's that different from the US? Nominally left-leaning yoga moms are a huge part of the antivax moxement. It's the same thing - a lack of understanding, an unwillingness to think critical, a naive belief that "nature good, human-made bad" without any nuance, and the willingness to deify their prophets of "natural healing".

Nominally left-leaning yoga moms should stick to yoga. The same goes for nominally right-leaning yoga moms. And yoga dads. Unless they feel like ditching every other 'human made' component from their lives as well for consistency.

Essential oils for broken legs.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#443

Post by jacquesm »

andy_ppp wrote: post #441

That we’re still debating this stuff is ridiculous, everyone seems to be trying to create a narrative out of actions performed with good intentions and imperfect information. I think Twitter and the press had an almost impossible job attempting to manage public health messaging. There does not need to be a red vs blue debate on this as if it’s some religious war. The way it’s debated verges on conspiracy theory to me…

Elon is doing his level best to create more controversy and hence more eyeballs. He also doesn't give a care about the damage to society that may cause as long as it increases the chances of his finances remaining solid.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#444

Post by stormking »

arcticbull wrote: post #432
causi wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There WAS a LOT of misinformation about covid, and a lot of it could cause real harm. Quite true. Thing is, there wasn't that much of it before the CDC spent over a month spewing bullshit telling people not to wear masks because masks don't stop the spread of COVID. It was obvious to everyone and their dog that masks help stop the spread of respiratory infections. That irrevocably shattered a whole lot of people's fa…

> Thing is, there wasn't that much of it before the CDC spent over a month spewing bullshit telling people not to wear masks because masks don't stop the spread of COVID. They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for first responders. The job of the government is to make tough decisions like this in times o…

> They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for first responders.

That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it.

Do you really not see how destructive this was? Do you really expect people to not only forgive but most importantly forget this lie, just because they "made it clear after the fact"? How were you supposed to know they're not lying, again, about the vaccines and their safety?

I'm no American but it was the exactly the same here in Germany, with exactly the same consequences. It really baffles me when now government officials whine about people not trusting them, anymore.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#445

Post by arcticbull »

stormking wrote: post #444
arcticbull wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thing is, there wasn't that much of it before the CDC spent over a month spewing bullshit telling people not to wear masks because masks don't stop the spread of COVID. They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for first responders. The job of the government is to make tough decisions like this in times o…

> They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for first responders. That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it. Do you really not see how destructive this was? Do you really…

> That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, ...

Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times.

> ... and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it.

No, it was for the individual good. Hoarding of masks by randos in the middle of nowhere leading to no supply for the first responders in hospital puts you, the individual, at greater risk.

If all the hospital staff have COVID and no ability to stop transmission within hospital because Bob the Prepper has filled his underground HEPA filtered bunker with masks, yes, that puts you at risk.

You can weigh the trade-offs but your statement that there was no other way of viewing the situation is simply wrong.

> Do you really not see how destructive this was? Do you really expect people to not only forgive but most importantly forget this lie, just because they "made it clear after the fact"? How were you supposed to know they're not lying, again, about the vaccines and their safety?

Again, a crap situation, but one that the CDC wasn't responsible for. It was their job to mitigate to the best of their abilities. Tough times call for tough decisions. We know how groups react, we knew what people would have done.

I'm pissed the stockpiles were allowed to run low, and I'm happy the first-responders were prioritized as I believe this gave everyone the best chance.

> It really baffles me when now government officials whine about people not trusting them, anymore.

It doesn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong choice at the time given what we knew.

[edit] They had an optimization problem: basically nobody in the population had COVID at the time, but those who did were likely to end up in hospital. Spreading out the limited masks over a population where almost nobody had it put far more people at risk than concentrating the supply in hospitals where far more people had it. This isn't rocket science. People were hoarding pasta at the time, and you think people were going to make good decisions about masks? The first casualty of War is Truth as they say.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#446

Post by jacquesm »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #346
JeremyNT wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Many young and healthy people still don‘t know anyone personally who died due to covid, nor anyone claiming to have long covid. Covid was never dangerous to <50/60 year olds.

> Covid was never dangerous to In the US alone you're talking about 75K people dead under 50.

And over 50 the numbers rise rapidly.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#447

Post by causi »

arcticbull wrote: post #445
stormking wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for first responders. That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it. Do you really not see how destructive this was? Do you really…

> That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, ... Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times. > ... and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it. No, it was for the individual good. Hoarding of masks by randos in the middle of nowhere leading to no supply for the firs…

Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times.

Lying to people about their personal health for the greater good of society gets you the Tuskegee Experiment.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#448

Post by arcticbull »

causi wrote: post #447
arcticbull wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, ... Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times. > ... and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it. No, it was for the individual good. Hoarding of masks by randos in the middle of nowhere leading to no supply for the firs…

Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times. Lying to people about their personal health for the greater good of society gets you the Tuskegee Experiment.

Completely different, sorry, and a wildly disingenuous comparison. There was no public health crisis at the time that required this, let alone to run it for 40 years. Let's keep to intellectually honest discourse and avoid hyperbole shall we? This is a contentious enough topic as is.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#449

Post by drexlspivey »

robot wrote: post #436

what's wrong with suppressing anti-vaxer views on twitter? elon's guy says twitter rigged the debate. yes so what. why should they have to provide a leveled platform for vaccine supporters vs anti-vaxers? If you look at china now there is a tragedy due to no vaccinations being available.

“I see nothing wrong with banning people who disagree with me”

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#450

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

andy_ppp wrote: post #441

That we’re still debating this stuff is ridiculous, everyone seems to be trying to create a narrative out of actions performed with good intentions and imperfect information. I think Twitter and the press had an almost impossible job attempting to manage public health messaging. There does not need to be a red vs blue debate on this as if it’s some religious war. The way it’s debated verges on conspiracy theory to me…

Right or wrong, you've completely missed the point.

Some people felt it wasn't worth the slightest bit of sacrifice to save other's lives.

Some people felt all human life was sacred and we should've done everything possible to save every last day of every person's life.

The vast majority of people were in the messy middle, and the debate centered around how much we should give up to save lives - especially when it might have long-term negative consequences.

A lot of people were willing to isolate and wear masks - and the debate centered around whether the government has the right (or should) force people to do those things.

A lot of people thought if you can't force everyone - it's a suckers game. Why should I isolate when other people aren't, and the effects are minimized - etc.

It's not as simple as "mask and isolation good", even if there is good evidence it worked for the initial strains of Covid.

Post reply on HN