How Twitter moderated the Covid debate • Hacker News Board

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#781

Post by evandale » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

steeve wrote: post #733

evandale wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if people want to discuss fire in a crowded movie theatre they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.

So you _do_ draw a line.

Yes and that line is drawn at an action, not a word.

People can talk about whatever they want and there isn't a line I would draw anywhere that said "you can't talk about that". People can _talk_ about whatever they want.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#782

Post by at_a_remove » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

peter422 wrote: post #772

at_a_remove wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may even be true, but you're missing a key point. There's a phrase and I think we're going to see a lot more of it surface in the discussions around this in the future. The phrase is "informed consent." Informed consent means knowing the risks. It's why we have little packets of paper with side effects, why that guy on the radio rattles off "may cause ..." at the end of commercials for medicine. Being good for u…

The initial safety trials for the vaccines involved tens of thousands and by the time you had the chance to get the vaccine it had been given to millions of people (with any adverse effects tracked). One of the vaccines was pulled off the market for super rare side effects! And at the same time, it was obviously, provably known that the vaccine was better than covid. Did you know covid causes myocarditis too? More of…

I know all of those things. It still doesn't matter. Informed consent must happen. We have a long and rich medical history of finding out what happens when that sort of thing is brushed off. "Hey, I'm doing you a big favor" doesn't matter, consent does.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#783

Post by iamacyborg » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

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.

The pragmatic answer is that the government wanted to secure supplies for social services first.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#784

Post by 2devnull » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

Some ideas are good. Other ideas are bad.

If people are able to share ideas, some people will share bad ideas. This problem goes back to Gutenberg.

Some will argue that the powers that be owe it to the less intelligent and less powerful masses to make sure to remove bad ideas, and/or to promote good ideas.

Others will point to history and note that banning books, or forcing people to read the “good ideas” has rarely been a successful long term strategy.

I side with those who reference history. History tends to be cyclical. Most thoughts have been thought before. Students of history have learned that manipulating what people think by engineering the free flow of ideas may work great in the short term, but longer term it’s doomed to failure.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#785

Post by worksonmine » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

steeve wrote: post #575

sfusato wrote: post #3

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?

I know you're just making a straw-man, but can you be sure no vaccine will ever have a component that causes cancer? Even if you can be sure what's the benefit of suppressing those claims rather than just ask for evidence that supports the claim? It's not that difficult.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#786

Post by evandale » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #769

evandale wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 imme…

Once again I feel like the only one who remembers what it was actually like in the early pandemic. People were already hoarding. That included masks, hand sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, and stuff that wasn't even related to COVID prevention like toilet paper. I don't understand how you can say hoarding might not have been any worse if the CDC revealed how important masks were to safety unless you believe that no one…

> I don't understand how you can say hoarding might not have been any worse if the CDC revealed how important masks were to safety unless you believe that no one was listening to the CDC anyway which invalidates your entire point.

I can say it because it wasn't tried. They went straight to lying and like you said, the hoarding still happened. If it was going to happen anyway why lie!?

I do honestly believe if they made a distinction between N95 and surgical masks, and their appropriateness in each setting, maybe it could have been different because I believe the world is full of good people but we'll never know. When another pandemic comes we still won't know. These lies that were told will never be forgotten and I believe the damage they caused in the long run is far greater than the problems they solved in the short run.

You seem to think that we've been living in a dystopia where governments have been lying to us forever, there's none you can trust, and everyone everywhere believes and knows this as if it were fact. I don't think that was anywhere close to true before the pandemic but I'm more likely to believe it today because of how many more people distrust their governments and the WHO because of their lies.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#787

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

bluenomatterwho wrote: post #704

jacquesm wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Many people talk dumb nonsense. Doesn't mean you should pay attention. Next time you have kidney trouble, appendicitis, an infected gal bladder, a blood clot in your aorta, a leaky heart valve or an infected tooth you'll be talking to a yoga mom then?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#788

Post by Klinky » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

ajvs wrote: post #765

Klinky wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Com'on, someone linking to a poorly done study claiming it proves "drug x cures COVID" isn't misinformation? Someone posting about 5G or Bill Gates being the source of the infection isn't misinformation? Someone going on some racist tirade about Chinese people isn't misinformed hate speech? You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate? Plenty of people were tryin…

> You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate? Yes, otherwise what happens when the ruling party is no longer your team? What if everything becomes inverted, so if you tried to say Bill Gates isn't one of the biggest beneficiaries of COVID then you get "visibility filtered" AKA shadowbanned? Then you make a detailed explanation about how the story of the Wuhan l…

The ruling party wasn't on my team and was often a source of misinformation during the height of the COVID pandemic. If I got banned for saying Bill Gates conspiracies were bullshit, then it sounds like that social media platform wasn't receptive to what I was saying. Boo hoo. Are you suggesting you'd force social media platforms to carry all voices, no matter what they're saying? How would you achieve that? Would community & content quality guidelines become illegal?

The bar for censorship shouldn't be so high that you legitimize misinformation by giving it a bigger platform than it merits. Social media can be a good place for discussion & debate, but in times when there's a national crisis occurring & you have people continually posting about how to take off-label drugs causing shortages for people who actually need it & injury to those taking it incorrectly, you run into misinformation causing real tangible harm to people. You cannot just ignore that. It's not just a run-of-the-mill philosophical debate about misinformation & censorship. The stakes are much lower in our discussion here.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#789

Post by kodah » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

BryantD wrote: post #773

kodah wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't a bad thesis, that would be giving them credit they don't deserve: https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20c6-8... Dr Fauci feared the rising costs of masks and whether the medical system would have enough. That wasn't his decision to make, but he made it. He later started using a new line, which is that they weren't aware that 40-50% of people were asymptomatic which was irrelevant for the…

That’s a great read! Fauci explains what facts he didn’t have at the time and why learning those facts changed his mind. If Covid was only transmissible by people with symptoms, you could control spread by asking those people to stay home and everyone else is clear — no masks needed. If it’s impossible to know if you’re infectious without testing, masks make more of a difference. More effective ones are obviously bet…

That's a narrative change, not a changing thesis. He knew at the time masks were needed by the general public but lied to the American public so that healthcare workers would have an adequate supply. He admits to that much. Again, a decision that was not his to make. He then realized that the lie was worse than he'd anticipated and started encouraging masks. Couple that with that Dr Fauci has been tied to being knowledgeable on gain of function research and most people can read between the lines.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#790

Post by peter422 » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

at_a_remove wrote: post #782

peter422 wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initial safety trials for the vaccines involved tens of thousands and by the time you had the chance to get the vaccine it had been given to millions of people (with any adverse effects tracked). One of the vaccines was pulled off the market for super rare side effects! And at the same time, it was obviously, provably known that the vaccine was better than covid. Did you know covid causes myocarditis too? More of…

I know all of those things. It still doesn't matter. Informed consent must happen. We have a long and rich medical history of finding out what happens when that sort of thing is brushed off. "Hey, I'm doing you a big favor" doesn't matter, consent does.

Given all the things the government is capable of doing (drafting you, imprisoning you, taxing you, taking your property, etc), you are putting way too high a standard on this.

The government has an interest in the overall public health and will make controversial decisions to that effect. They've done it before and will do it again. There were also right in this case so that is kind of important.

I agree they could have been wrong, and that would have sucked. But they weren't. The processes and safeguards to the very aggressive policies got to the correct endpoint, and saved a lot of people's lives (in some cases against their will).