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

531–540 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#531

Post by mns »

jacquesm wrote: post #524
Nursie wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Unconstitutional” in which countries and by what constitution? I learned that a lot of people think contrarianism makes them smart, and that even if everything everyone was saying about covid was true, they felt it necessary to ‘resist’ purely for the sake of it. I never though that in a pandemic, so many people in so many places would both politicise public health measures and actively side with the virus. But here…

Indeed, all we had to do was stay put for a bit and yet the virus found humanity actively fighting for its side. Baffling. To put it mildly. And it appears that they are still litigating this. Even more baffling.

What are you talking about? A bit? Most of Europe was in a strict lockdown in spring 2020, you weren’t even allowed to leave your home. The lockdowns and curfews continued also in 2021, how much longer should that bit be?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#532

Post by slg »

causi wrote: post #521
slg wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The job of the government is to make tough decisions like this in times of crisis. You can agree or disagree but this was neither malicious nor in my opinion outside the scope of the role. I understand how dangerous it is for the government to lie, but what do people think would have been the proper approach here? Do we not remember what it was like during the early pandemic and all the hoarding that was going on? D…

what do people think would have been the proper approach here Tell us the truth. "N95s should be reserved for medical personnel but surgical masks provide nominal protection for yourself and significant protection for others you might infect." People realizing the CDC can and will lie to them has already been and will be far into the future responsible for countless deaths. Not only that, it makes us question what el…

Once again, there was already hoarding. This would have led to even more hoarding which would have led to even more deaths.

Maybe it is just that I started this ordeal in a more cynical place than others, but this one example of the CDC not telling the full truth is not some earth-shattering revelation to me. The government has lied to us countless times. I assume they will continue to lie to us in the future. At least this example shows that the people at the CDC were trying to think strategically about the best approach to save the most lives. That is their mission and they are probably in a better position to make the right decision on matters like this than either of us.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#533

Post by ogogmad »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #450
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 mi…

> 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.

The perfect tragedy of the commons. It's why we need government.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#534

Post by ethanbond »

causi wrote: post #423
andreyk wrote: post #377

OK, so here's the key bit: "Twitter executives did not fully capitulate to the Biden team’s wishes. An extensive review of internal communications at the company revealed that employees often debated moderation cases in great detail, and with more care for free speech than was shown by the government. ... But Twitter did suppress views—and not just those of journalists like Berenson. Many medical and public health pr…

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…

This whole part of the narrative is, unfortunately, a story about how people cannot be delivered nuanced messages even while screaming that they deserve nuance.

The CDC did not say that makes do not work. They said we do not know if masks work, which was (and mostly still remains) true.

Only person who said we have positive knowledge that masks don’t work was USSG Jerome Adams, and that was pretty late in the ordeal.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#535

Post by joenot443 »

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.

I wouldn't ever be able to trust a govt org again if it was revealed they'd made the decision to deliberately lie to their populace. There are few things that a government can do which is unforgivable, and brazenly lying to the faces of its citizens is one of them.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#536

Post by rightbyte »

philjohn wrote: post #512
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about telling people the truth, that there were no masks for everyone and they had to prioritize first responders? Treat people like adults and they will behave like adults. Treat them like kids and they'll behave like kids. Also, once you know you have been lied to, the trust is shattered, whatever the excuses. How people is going to trust again the CDC, knowing that it lied before?

Because large groups of people have shown, time and again, they don't act rationally. Look at toilet paper - one rumour that it would run out, despite shops, the government, everyone, saying there is more than enough and the rabble went out and hoarded.

> they don't act rationally.

Buying toilet paper when there is a toilet paper "bank run" is rational just as it is rational to take out your money from a failing bank.

Were I lived we had toilet paper but were all out of yeast. One person could buy all the store's 300 yeast bags for like 30USD. And as soon as people realized the yeast were gone they seemed to always buy yeast when available, making a shortage for a long time.

A way to prevent this is some soft limit on the amount people can buy. But it need to be in place before the shelves are empty.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#538

Post by MikeLumos »

andy_ppp wrote: post #470
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mi…

The debate of a toddler frustrated at having a seatbelt put on in a car.

That's a big part of the problem - a group of people have unilaterally decided that they're the grown up ones, and they know better, and dismiss everyone else as toddlers.

Using that wonderful justification, they proceeded to censor everyone who disagrees with them, including the points of view that later turned out to be correct.

When you decide that you're a smart adult, declare every dissenting viewpoint to be "disinformation", and, therefore, you get to decide for other people what they do or do not get to read or think, and then you get it wrong, people will be justifiably upset. Even if you get it right, people will be upset.

So here's a wild suggestion - why not treat other human beings as adults capable of making up their own minds about things?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#539

Post by ethanbond »

thinking4real wrote: post #473
twblalock wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI comes up in plenty of the other Twitter censorship stories. Covid is not a one-off, and this article exists in that broader context, or it would not be interesting. It was part of a sustained, illiberal, counterproductive, and overall pretty stupid pattern of behavior from both the government and Twitter.

[flagged]

Like gaslighting people into thinking FBI requested suppression of the Hunter story (they didn’t), or that the FBI == the Biden team (it’s not), or that the FBI was suppressing COVID stories (it wasn’t) or that Twitter felt compelled to satisfy all Biden team or FBI requests (it didn’t)?

That sort of gaslighting?

Or maybe the implication that Twitter will henceforth not allow government or govt affiliated entities to request content moderation (they will) or that they won’t give such requests preference (they will) or that they shouldn’t give such requests preference (a matter of opinion, but not crazy to believe they should).

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#540

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN