How Twitter moderated the Covid debate • Hacker News Board

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#921

Post by acdha » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

_-david-_ wrote: post #713

acdha wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also was not the candidate, did not have a chance of getting a government position like his predecessor’s children, and there was no public interest in seeing his acts. It would have been newsworthy if they’d tried to hide the story of Hunter’s addiction but it was public knowledge already along with Joe’s desire to help his son get treatment.

>He also was not the candidate, did not have a chance of getting a government position like his predecessor’s children And? Does that mean we should suppress evidence of crimes that are posted on Twitter because of that? If I committed a crime, should Twitter delete the articles and pictures? > It would have been newsworthy if they’d tried to hide the story of Hunter’s addiction but it was public knowledge already al…

Twitter isn’t law enforcement so, no, there isn’t a requirement that they provide free hosting and promotion for everyone alleging a crime. In this case, they briefly used their hacked materials policy until deciding that it didn’t apply to the news coverage but did continue to yank non-consensual nudes under their existing policies.

If you genuinely believed that Hunter Biden had child porn or whatever Giuliani imagines, you’d definitely want that offline since there’s no public benefit to circulating criminal materials and law enforcement is definitely going to investigate it.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#922

Post by 4bpp » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

throwaway29812 wrote: post #871

iamacyborg wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apparently the ends don't ever justify the means according to some.

It's not necessarily about the ends never justifying the means; some of us just have arrived at the impression that the same means of deception and authoritarianism are being justified so often by a variety of ends that perhaps their proponents don't actually believe there is a terrible lot of justification needed for them.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#923

Post by ethbr0 » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 4:24 PM UTC

philliphaydon wrote: post #628

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.

Possibly. But either stockpile or product them locally so production can be ramped up for local populous in the time of a pandemic. And make sending masks overseas illegal. Too many people were buying up shops of marks and sending them back to China. That hurts us even more.

A ton of masks used in the US were assembled in China, because they have the manufacturing capacity and labor cost advantage, even if they were built with meltblown filters produced in the US.

If the goal is pandemic preparedness, it would probably be most efficient to just build and mothball production lines, doing limited runs yearly to exercise the machinery.

The government has more than enough land and warehouse space.

As far as I understand, none of the components (or machinery to produce them) are particularly cutting edge... just limited because they were sized for pre-pandemic sales volume.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#924

Post by freejazz » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 4:27 PM UTC

4bpp wrote: post #919

freejazz wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A conspiracy whose conspirators believe they are doing a morally good thing is still a conspiracy. In fact, in one or another way this is probably the case for most conspiracies - as they say, nobody is the villain of their own story. Does it make a difference if some people outside of the conspiring circle agree with the conspirators that their cause is righteous? I don't see why, and it's not like everyone or even…

I didn't speak to their individualized or group subjective motivation, but an objective measure of what was done, so your whole response is completely off.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#925

Post by steeve » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 4:54 PM UTC

evandale wrote: post #781

steeve wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're playing with words. Let's go there. Perhaps I'm discussing the fire loud enough for people to hear. How do you differentiate between "word" and "action"?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#926

Post by steeve » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 4:56 PM UTC

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #895

steeve wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some of you": nice. You do sound like someone who never had to decide anything in their life and thinks only theoretically, disregarding reality. Absolute free speech is dividing by zero, basically.

why are you moving goalposts? parent did not say you are free to yell fire in a crowded theater

How am I moving goalpost? Parent is living in a fantasy world where pure argumentation replaces BS. I'm guessing Jan 6 and COVID proved that world doesn't exist.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#927

Post by steeve » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

worksonmine wrote: post #785

steeve wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's been shown than a sufficiently high number of people won't care about evidence, no matter how hard it's been displayed. Then you get Jan 6th.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#928

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 5:04 PM UTC

steeve wrote: post #926

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why are you moving goalposts? parent did not say you are free to yell fire in a crowded theater

How am I moving goalpost? Parent is living in a fantasy world where pure argumentation replaces BS. I'm guessing Jan 6 and COVID proved that world doesn't exist.

There's an alternate fantasy world where authorities never wrongly decide what truth is. I'm guessing the 20th century proved that world doesn't exist, either.

So: We live in a world where there's lots of BS, much of it deliberately malicious, and in a world where authority figures will misuse authority over "truth", sometimes deliberately and blatantly to further their own power. Now what? What is the best strategy for maximizing good and minimizing harm in the world we actually live in?

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#929

Post by darkerside » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #889

darkerside wrote: post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beginnin…

> 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.

That claim is what I've been disagreeing with in all my text above. I don't think there's been any rational explanation, let alone apology, for what were at best unsubstantiated claims early in the pandemic, and at worst, lies to the public. Probably somewhere in between.

Jerome Adams is perhaps the worst culprit, but he was not alone in saying that masks don't work, and the CDC never offered a lucid explanation.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#930

Post by imwillofficial » Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #863

imwillofficial wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I championed nothing. I merely proposed that listening to alternative viewpoints on controversial topics is now something that is now on the table for me. Literally a Strawman.

It's a threaded discussion. I wasn't replying to you.

Neither did they.

Leave the Strawman alone, you beat him up enough.