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

671–680 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#671

Post by timerol »

themitigating wrote: post #665
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…

"CDC spent over a month spewing bullshit telling people not to wear masks because masks don't stop the spread of COVID." Can you provide the source for this?

Late Feb 2020 until early April 2020 https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd...

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#672

Post by [deleted] »

ethanbond wrote: post #573
newsclues wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that has been trained by one of the few organizations that develops leadership (military)... The communications and advise from the medical establishment and media, were so terrible that that I question incompetence and lean towards corruption. The flip flopping, the political and idealogical justifications, the theatre of everything without substance. The People can handle nuanced messaging, what they can…

Yeah see people say all this but the actual example they use is a thing that didn’t happen. The nuanced, correct message was that we don’t know if masks work. That’s what they said. What you heard was “masks don’t work.” So what we actually learned is that people are not capable of receiving nuanced messages, at least among the people who are pissed off about not having received a nuanced message (which they did).

[deleted]

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#673

Post by metadat »

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.

For those not already familiar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#674

Post by BryantD »

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…

It’s wild how we’ve completely forgotten the fomite hypothesis that was assumed for the first couple of months of the pandemic. Remember the guy who wanted us to bleach our vegetables? Remember all the distilleries making hand sanitizer because touch was the only thing that mattered?

You don’t have to assume the CDC was full of lies if you remember that they were working from an inaccurate hypothesis at a time when reducing transmission rates seemed like it might be the most important thing in the world.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#675

Post by freejazz »

4bpp wrote: post #602
iamacyborg wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why fall into conspiracies when the pragmatic answer is the more logical one?

What is the pragmatic and non-conspiracy answer you are imagining? As I understand it, a group of people coordinating in secret to take actions that the public would not let them take if the secrecy were broken is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.

This abuses the word conspiracy theory, which implies a malevolent plan (at least in the common use of the word) as opposed to a benevolent plan. Your argument is incredibly disingenuous.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#676

Post by freejazz »

shaky-carrousel wrote: post #502
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…

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?

Well, it worked so well for the toilet paper, who could think there'd be a negative reaction if everyone thought they'd die from the mystery illness w/o the PPE that needed to be saved for medical professionals. Yeah, totally great point you made there.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#677

Post by worksonmine »

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…

How is the title misleading? Facts from the CDC itself was suppressed when it didn't fit the narrative. Even here on HN where titles are supposed to be the original unless clickbait the word "rigged" is changed to "moderated".

Moderated implies it's unbiased while it's clearly not.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#678

Post by BryantD »

bgro wrote: post #424

There’s apparently a lot of people upset about Twitter for trying to manage misinformation. I’d like to see equal information leaked from Fox for comparison, who should have journalistic integrity since they’re a news company. It seems weird to me that Twitter is the only one people seem to be up in arms about, and not the times the US president did things like suggest to the public, on live national tv, that consumi…

It’s even worse than that! We’re getting some internal Fox News communications as a result of the Dominion lawsuit and nobody cares that Hannity knew the election fraud claims were false. He just went right ahead and interviewed Sidney Powell anyhow.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#679

Post by AlchemistCamp »

themitigating wrote: post #665
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…

"CDC spent over a month spewing bullshit telling people not to wear masks because masks don't stop the spread of COVID." Can you provide the source for this?

“The” source?

Assuming you were alive and paying any attention the past two years, the source would be your own eyes and ears, consuming the (US) CDC’s official communications. I wasn’t even in the US and encountered them! In fact, I once even repeated one of their false claims about masks very early last year during a recorded zoom call with a friend. Then after looking at the very different claims from my local CDC, I realized the US one was wrong.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#680

Post by timerol »

concordDance wrote: post #590
danShumway wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Twitter did suppress views—and not just those of journalists like Berenson. Many medical and public health professionals who expressed perspectives or even cited findings from accredited academic journals that conflicted with official positions were also targeted. ... There were three serious problems with Twitter’s process [bots, contractors, and biased decision making by top level execs]". ---- These debates…

Mastodon seems vulnerable to ideological splitting where you get two parallel worlds that don't talk to each other. E.g. one that believes that transwomen aren't women and that Africans are less intelligent and one that doesn't.

"Vulnerable" is an odd word to use there. "Ideological splitting" is the way humans have interacted since the Tower of Babel. Forcing everyone into the same conversation is a guaranteed way to produce conflict. I would say "Mastodon facilitates ideological splitting as a way to have more pleasant conversations and less absurd arguments."
Post reply on HN