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

881–890 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#881

Post by flavius29663 »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #877
_-david-_ wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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. First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted. Second, you can ask to have content removed, nobody is stopping you, no executive…

> no executive orders or legal threats were issued.

that is a pretty interesting high bar to uphold

> No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own.

That was an open and shut case of corruption, you playing innocent ("no idea") does not make it less so.

> Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent. Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government.

This is literally whataboutism. In the meantime, twitter did not remove information about Ivanka and the Trumps, on the contrary.

In an alternate reality, wouldn't you be pissed if Google removed all bad information about the Trumps?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#882

Post by poszlem »

Rastonbury wrote: post #878
poszlem wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actions of "the authorities" (or rather - many people working in "the authorities") were both malicious/dishonest and incompetent at different times (and for different people). I can try and attribute the "masks don't work" narrative to incompetence (they were trying to save the masks, and that backfired), but it isn't hard to argue that that was also dishonest. The same applies to the "you MUSTstay indoors" mess…

I get what you mean, thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, do you avoid news/media now, or get it from other sources?

I use the website Ground News (https://ground.news/) to try to get information from as many sources as possible. In the past, I may have dismissed some people as being "crazy" or believing in conspiracy theories, but the past few years have shown me that it is important to keep an open mind and not be too sure of my own beliefs. As a result of this realization, I have been more open to talking to people, including friends and family, whom I may have previously avoided or dismissed (think - Trump loving uncles, or anti-vax brothers-in-law)

I am also much more sceptical of"experts" ("experts say that") and phrases like "there is no evidence for X" (https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence...).

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#883

Post by VagueMag »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #394
AustinDev wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was def some sort of psyop.

By whom? Who benefits aside from enemies of Western democracies?

The large number of elites who were shown by the Epstein scandal to participate in pedophile rings, concerns about which are now equated in most of the public's mind with wild ARG apophenia.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#884

Post by bluenomatterwho »

jacquesm wrote: post #787
bluenomatterwho wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Indeed, many people induce unnecessary stress upon themselves spewing vitriol. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading... I spoke in general on purpose, to avoid getting into the weeds on statistics like this. Of course we are aware of modern medical techniques. But the general divide between holistic and allopathic medicine is well known. Perhaps a deep breath is in order.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#885

Post by darkerside »

maxerickson wrote: post #710
darkerside wrote: post #626

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. 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…

I'm not disputing that masks should have been conserved for healthcare professionals. I do dispute that any government official has directly stated that this was reason for the CDC lying. I actually think that would be a huge scandal. That's the source I'm looking for, based on your claim.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#886

Post by Nursie »

jakear wrote: post #796
Nursie wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re doing exactly what I said, exaggerating and twisting to claim victories where there are none. That Fauci email says that masks are primarily to prevent infected people from spreading disease, and a lot of crappy masks are unlikely to do much but prevent some droplets. This was before a lot of the studies were in that showed there was some effect. People can be wrong early on, this is expected. Later on when th…

> Nope, I’m not American, and it appears neither does your source, because the link that should take you to the original claim goes to some other story. Here's another: https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-director-data-suggests-vaccinated... And more: https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1376925777397186560 --- > Anything can affect women’s menstrual cycles [...] It's not really surprising and it's not necessarily serious. M…

I didn’t flag you, I would have liked you post to stand so others could see the conversation as it was, and see you doing exactly as I predicted - ‘evidencing’ claims that you had been right all along with half-truths and contortions.

Which you’re still doing.

> Here's another

"Scientist talks about existing data on the original virus, conspiracy theorist uses hindsight and information from variants that didn't even exist at the time to try to paint them as malicious"

> Don't make the mistake of saying fucking with menstrual cycles and covering it up isn't serious, as it will out you as someone who speaks to things they have no clue about

Or it might out you as someone who has no idea, because you haven't provided any evidence that such a thing is serious and has any longer term effects, and all of those other things I've mentioned can cause the same issue, yet we don't scream about how aircraft travel is evil because it can disturb menstrual cycles.

Seriously, your comment on this is about as useful as "In Before XXXX".

> Besides that all your points are "your sourced claim is in disagreement with my feelings"

Your sources don't back up you original claims that the US said "oh yeah, we totally did that". You've stitched together assertions, hyperbole and half-truths.

It's that simple. And it's utterly predictable.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#887

Post by _-david-_ »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #877
_-david-_ wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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. First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted. Second, you can ask to have content removed, nobody is stopping you, no executive…

>First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted.

There are literally pictures of him smoking crack. I don't fully remember, but there may have been a video of it as well. Do you think it is a deep fake?

>Second, you can ask to have content removed, nobody is stopping you, no executive orders or legal threats were issued.

That isn't what happened with the Hunter pictures and articles though. The government asked for it to be removed.

> No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own.

I never suggested that happened.

> Citation needed.

Joe Biden said it himself: "I'm not going to -- or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said -- I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

This was the prosecutor investigating the company Hunter Biden was working at. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but there was a clear conflict of interest.

> Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent.

Of course I am against this. The difference is Twitter didn't ban any articles about this like they did with Hunter.

>Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government.

I don't think this matters. The only reason (as far as I can tell) that Hunter got the job is because his dad was in an official position in the government. No different than the Trumps.

> It does make quite a bit of a difference between inside and outside, don't you think?

No. Corruption is corruption. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior.

>I hope you were proportionally outraged over Ivanka and Jared:

I am proportionally outraged at Ivanka and Jared as I am Hunter. I am not proportionally outraged over the situation since only one was censored by Twitter.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#888

Post by 20after4 »

autoexec wrote: post #815
Scoundreller wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Canada, it was partly a coverup for the government destroying the N95 & PPE stockpile it put together after SARS1, because it expired before another pandemic happened. At the federal and provincial levels. And no, they didn’t replace the stock. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2020/03/25/p... https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5530081

Our stockpile wasn't maintained and replenished either. I don't think anyone got in trouble for that failure, but I hope they did and I just didn't hear about it.

Of course nobody got in trouble for that. They were rewarded handsomely.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#889

Post by maxerickson »

darkerside wrote: post #885
maxerickson wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not disputing that masks should have been conserved for healthcare professionals. I do dispute that any government official has directly stated that this was reason for the CDC lying. I actually think that would be a huge scandal. That's the source I'm looking for, based on your claim.

What do you mean "my claim".

My push is that people are characterizing statements made by government officials as lies, but they are more or less misunderstanding them to do so. There were a lot of statements that look bad in hindsight, but they were about the limited effectiveness of masks much more than they were about masks not working.

I'm also claiming that talk of the shortages was pretty much from the beginning, there was no attempt to hide the idea that they wanted to prioritize use of masks for healthcare providers.

It's not unreasonable for someone to talk about N95 masks not providing a lot of benefit for naive users when the full benefit of the mask only comes if it is worn properly and fits well. That people choose to a wear a mask when it is voluntary and then do a horrible job of it sort of backs up the reasoning. There's literally no reason to wear a procedure mask over your mouth and not your nose, and yet I regularly see it in my small town (which is probably net anti-mask in sentiment).

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#890

Post by 20after4 »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #748
ethbr0 wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think in quantities. Hospitals in normal times don't consume the number of masks you'd need to stockpile for a pandemic situation.

We can invent and manufactur a bomber that evades radar. Mask are 5 to 10 orders of magnitude less involved. The only responsible excuse is incompetence or negligence. We, the USA, were completely unprepared.

incompetence AND negligence
Post reply on HN