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

701–710 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#701

Post by evandale »

slg wrote: post #532
causi wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lea…

You can't say with 100% certainty people would have hoarded if they were told to save N95s for high risk people and use surgical masks for grocery store runs because they provided adequate protection in that environment.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that not everyone was as cynical as yourself, trusted the government, and as a result of these lies will be more cynical than you originally were. The lies did immeasurable damage to people's trust.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#702

Post by somenameforme »

t0bia_s wrote: post #495

How can anybody be surprised that so many people belive in so called "conspiracy theories" when many of them looks like true. The rising tribalism in times of digital information is truly interesting phenomenon. When most people realise how easily we are manipulated just by words and images in media, trust in any information will not exist. We are really go to post-truth times.

It seems to me that many of the current changes in society are not really changes, but just the ending of what was an abnormal little, extremely pleasant, bubble in time. And it's in that bubble that "we" (Westerner, over the age of ~30) all grew up in.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. .... I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 [1]

That sort of condemnation of the news would have been, at the minimum, quite hyperbolic during the time we grew up in. But now? It seems like a scathing, yet completely reasonable, criticism of the current state of media. And this goes on endlessly far back. Read the classics (Plato's "The Republic" feels effectively prophetic at this point) and it goes from sounding alien, during our bubble, to sounding like something oddly familiar.

It's quite comforting in a way. We're not stepping into some great new unknown, but merely returning to the endless cycling of history.

[1] - https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=tex...

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#703

Post by evandale »

slg wrote: post #493
int_19h wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proper approach would have been to pass emergency legislation establishing mask rationing and distribution. If need be, confiscate the entire existing supply and direct it to the hospitals. But don't lie about it.

Is confiscating privately owned safety equipment the more democratic and libertarian approach than trying to convince people they shouldn't buy that equipment in the first place? That seems way more dystopian to me.

Yes, confiscating privately owned equipment and telling people you need them in hospitals is better than lying to people and telling them their equipment doesn't work because secretly they need them for hospitals.

I don't know why you think that's more dystopian.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#704

Post by bluenomatterwho »

jacquesm wrote: post #442
groby_b wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many people point out that hospitals tend to have tough luck with anything except broken bones.

Preventative medicine, nutrition, etc have an impressive record for everything else. Essential oils may be a rather small part of this.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#705

Post by phpisthebest »

ethanbond wrote: post #627
phpisthebest wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice revisionist history, but the CDC and other government actors where absolutely telling people not to use masks, buy masks and were in fact confiscating privately owned masks from people early in the pandemic.

Correct, they were telling people not to buy masks due to a shortage which is a different claim from “masks don’t work.” Could it possibly be the case that these statements are all true?: 1) We don’t know if masks donned by untrained people in normal public settings impacts transmission 2) We do know that masks donned by medical professionals in a medical context impacts transmission 3) We know there are not enough m…

Having a memory more than a goldfish means I know exactly what was said, and they did more then just say "masks may not work" I vividly remember Facui stating many times on multiple interviews that masks were not effective.

>the public should not get masks until medical professionals are equipped with what they need?

disagree. I think people should be free to acquire any product they want on the market, and I believe it is HIGHLY unethical for government to come in cease medical equipment / masks/ or anything else under the guise they "do not work" for the public so we need to take them from you and give them to these other people that are better than you

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#706

Post by code_runner »

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?

I have personally had discussions with people about this. I’m about as liberal as they come, but a lot of covid guidance was confusing in the beginning and I think that admitting that has somehow become taboo. It’s still weird that I feel the need to clarify my political stance on an apolitical issue like this. As time went on messaging improved, but the initial confusion was definitely there.

Nobody knew what was going on, I read as much about covid as I could (including HN comments about something to do with quinine that was popular for a day or two)

This is the source I found https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd...

I think there is a big time Mandela effect here. I remember “don’t buy masks” as being about preserving masks for essential workers and medical professionals, I don’t necessarily recall the portion where they said it didn’t help infection rates, but yet there it is.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#707

Post by daxfohl »

What _should_ Twitter have done? I see plenty of "nothing", so that's not interesting. But if there was a Blue, and surveys where you could see the opinions aggregated by, say, doctors with ivy league degrees, would that be useful? It would allow for dissenting voices but (maybe?) less likelihood of those voices overwhelming the majority? Any other opinions?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#708

Post by _-david-_ »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #433
_-david-_ wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest issue isn't the dick pics, but him smoking crack and potentially having sex with an underaged woman. He just happened to be naked while doing/potentially doing those things.

I fail to see why then it is Twitter's responsibility to report this to the general public or even allow its existence. Authorities exist for a reason, twitter is neither part of the judicial, executive, nor legislative branch, nor does it have any jurisdiction in conducting research into criminal offenses and prosecuting people. I fail to see why Hunter Biden needs to be held at a different standard than other peopl…

>I fail to see why then it is Twitter's responsibility to report this to the general public or even allow its existence.

Should Twitter remove all evidence of other people's crimes or just Hunter's that get posted?

>Authorities exist for a reason, twitter is neither part of the judicial, executive, nor legislative branch, nor does it have any jurisdiction in conducting research into criminal offenses and prosecuting people.

Nobody is asking for Twitter to arrest Hunter or hold a trial. They just wanted to be able to spread information about the crimes.

>I fail to see why Hunter Biden needs to be held at a different standard than other people

He was held to a different standard when Twitter removed people posting pictures and articles about his crime. If I committed a crime would Twitter ban those pictures? Doubt it.

>especially given that he did not hold office

The only time Twitter should allow evidence of crimes is when the person is a government official? Seems like a weird standard.

>nor was in the process of doing so via cronyism

How did he get his job in Ukraine and why did the prosecutor get fired at Joe Biden's request if it wasn't for cronyism?

>nor did he make millions off his [non existent] position in the government.

He did make millions in a nongovernmental position that he was given due to his relationship with his father though.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#709

Post by code_runner »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #679
themitigating wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 think so much of the messaging would have been better if there were disclaimers about “we are still doing research” and “based on our knowledge at this time”… or even timeboxing the advice so it’s updated every 12-48 hours even if unchanged.

This specific messaging has been a rallying point for people who don’t even believe covid exists. At least that was the case in the US

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#710

Post by maxerickson »

darkerside wrote: post #626
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. I hear this a lot. Do you have a citation? My impression is that nobody knew what was going on, underprepared officials jumped the gun with premature statements, and after the fact some people tried to rationalize the incompetence.

The contemporaneous statements often mentioned shortages and preserving masks for healthcare workers.

This Fauci interview in early March has him saying that he thinks masks aren't necessary at the time but also saying that he isn't against people wearing them (both things together at ~1 minute if you are impatient):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI

This CDC transcript doesn't talk a lot about PPE, but it talks about directing it to healthcare workers that are at higher risk:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0303-COVID-19-updat...

I'm sure there's stuff that looks worse if you go back through the 6 weeks previous to that, but early March is when things started to really happen in the US (I remember making a relatively large shopping trip that felt like it put me on the cautious side of things, and then the next week I started working from home).

There's a lot of people saying that the government was saying not to wear masks, which is subtly different from saying that people don't need to wear masks, or that masks won't benefit most people. The surgeon general was out there saying they weren't effective for the general public, which is bad but still different from saying not to wear them. And I'm not sure it's entirely fair to attribute his comms failures to the CDC (they might have had a hand in it, who knows, but they don't control the surgeon general).

Given how well people do with their masks (I still regularly see people wearing low quality masks incorrectly!), it seems true enough that they should be secondary to things like social distancing. I was sort of pleased and surprised a few weeks ago when my hospital was handing out N95s. Of course, it didn't matter much when half the patients had them under their nose (one confused lady had it sideways with the straps around her ears). They started self screening the next week, with only procedure masks available.

Post reply on HN