661–670 of 986 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you quote what explicit pressure was applied?
Go read the twitter files drops
Main thing this article seems to illustrate is that the federal government was blatantly violating the 1st amendment to silence viewpoints counter to it's own. I really don't care what a private platform does, the actions of the government far outweigh anything Twitter did in this case.
but it was a "noble lie" for the interest of the public. I think those are allowed.
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…
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…
I would say they lumped themselves. Even the worst grifters know how to cloak their schemes in language of "free inquiry" and "skepticism" and so on. If the true skeptics do nothing at all to distinguish themselves from the grifters, that's on them. None of us are mind readers.
How could one make such a distinction? The key is that a true skeptic is not the same as a true believer in some alternative theory. A true skeptic will follow the scientific method - identifying specific flaws, being open to discussion of experiments to resolve open questions, citing sources that others can check, etc. Most importantly, they will apply the same level of skepticism to alternatives or to other topics. A true believer, on the other hand, will push their own theory with weak evidence, weak connections, and no attempt to correct those flaws even as they're relentless in criticizing others. When you look past the whitewash of "all voices [but effectively only their own] deserve to be heard" rhetoric, it's usually not that hard to spot the difference.
Exercise for the reader: apply this method to the many comments here about "thrombo-embolic events" as an argument against vaccines (for any group or generally). How many of the people flinging that newly-learned term around are true skeptics, and how many are just reflexive contrarians?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, agreed with all of this which is why I think when it became the case that the general population wearing masks would not have negative impacts on supply for medical workers, it made sense to default to “wear masks.” When the gen pop wearing masks would have a negative impact on supply, it seems defensible at least to advocate against the population buying masks. Note that what confuses people here is not that th…
But they weren’t advising the public not to wear masks based on genuine skepticism, but on a confused belief that it would have the narrow effect of relieving the supply crunch, with no long term effect on mask compliance in the future, even given the loss of trust from having told the public BS reasons not to wear them. (Like the Fauci quotes and assertions of ineffectiveness.) That was stupid, and foreseeably so.
It's completely believable to me that future mask compliance among the general population is way less valuable than ensuring that medical professionals had N95s in the first half or first quarter of 2020. Also seems believable that that guidance reduced N95 consumption among the general public.
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…
Can you provide the source for this?
Some seem to be okay with the government and intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with Big Tech to make sure we only get to learn and discuss corporate sponsored healthcare advice now.
Do you think saying "vaccines cause cancer" is fair game then? Where do you draw the line?
Some of you have a real problem understanding the entire meaning of free speech. If you just think a few steps ahead you'll understand that if you "draw the line" then someone has to be the arbiter of truth. That arbiter will not always be on your side as we've seen over and over throughout history.
If you see someone touting a blatant lie you only need o refute it with actual evidence. Suppression of this stuff will do nothing but cause you to look like you're trying to hide evidence for some nefarious reason.
You do not get to play mother to an entire nation of people and decide what they are allowed to see and not see. Grow up, act like an adult and realize you're going to hear things that aren't true and things you don't agree with. This is how civil discussion takes place.
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'm not a conspiracy theorist As told in my Middle Eastern history class, "it's reasonable to be a conspiracy theorist when you've been the subject of countless governments conspiring against you and/or your people -- in fact it would be unreasonable not to be one". Iranians who claimed the US Government had orchestrated their elections were dismissed as conspiracy theorists, then 47 years later the US said "oh yea…
That's dangerously wrong. Yes, if you have some rational reason to believe that a conspiracy is the best explanation for a particular thing, even if others don't see it, then go nuts. That's healthy and good IMO. Even laudable. However, "conspiracy theorist" as an ongoing identity or habit is not healthy either for your own reputation or for the well being of those affected by unfounded accusations. Occam's Razor is not burying one's head in the sand.
Some seem to be okay with the government and intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with Big Tech to make sure we only get to learn and discuss corporate sponsored healthcare advice now.
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.
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. 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 feel like just outright telling people "hey, we don…
> there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people So make your own mask. Lots of people did, and there were loads of instructables. Sure, an N95 is better than a surgical mask, which is better than a homemade mask, which is better than a scarf or bank-robber bandana. I wore a mask to protect others, not myself. I'm not confident that a mask protects me from the effusions of others; but I'm pretty confident t…
If you remove an N95 in a smokey environment, you’ll immediately smell the smoke, while you didn’t before you removed it.
Exception: if someone is close enough to hit you with droplets when they speak (a foot or so), then a procedure mask is better than nothing.