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

961–970 of 986 posts

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#961

Post by tux2bsd »

dang wrote: post #949
tux2bsd wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments and using HN primarily for ideological battle? We ban accounts that do these things, regardless of which flavor they're battling for. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> We ban accounts that do these things, regardless of which flavor they're battling for.

I don't believe the latter half of that sentence but sure, I'll tone it down.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#962

Post by dang »

tux2bsd wrote: post #961
dang wrote: post #949

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments and using HN primarily for ideological battle? We ban accounts that do these things, regardless of which flavor they're battling for. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> We ban accounts that do these things, regardless of which flavor they're battling for. I don't believe the latter half of that sentence but sure, I'll tone it down.

I'm not going to claim anything about relative proportions but if you look through my moderation comments (not that I recommend doing so), you'll find plenty of examples of the other side getting banned for the same reasons. Or you could just look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 and see how bitterly they complain about it.

(I don't remember anything about which side you're on, but the above is all true either way.)

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#964

Post by mullingitover »

JSavageOne wrote: post #951
mullingitover wrote: post #945

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...a platform censoring viewpoints is a violation of the principal of free speech, and morally reprehensible in a free democratic society Agree to disagree here - Twitter and every other social media site are essentially complimentary printing presses in the middle of town that some private party pays for and allows everyone to use, with some conditions. In a free and democratic society, we're all free to buy our o…

You're basically just arguing "Twitter can do whatever the hell they want", which is not what I'm debating. I'm arguing that a platform like Twitter that operates under the pretense of accessibility to all and freedom should uphold itself to a higher standard of free speech than the blatant one-sided censorship it engaged in during COVID. This would make the product better for its users, and be better for society. Of…

> I'm arguing that a platform like Twitter that operates under the pretense of accessibility to all and freedom

They don't operate under that pretense at all. They explicitly reserve the right to delete content from their site that they find to be harmful or offensive, and permanently ban anyone they deem a bad actor, and they always have done so.

You can try to paint them as commie totalitarians, but the fact remains that they're not censoring debates on which is the better political philosophy, they're making good faith efforts to keep people from getting killed by health misinformation or harassed by hateful conduct. They don't have to do a perfect job at that, either, just as long as they're genuinely making good faith efforts.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#965

Post by brigandish »

jltsiren wrote: post #957
brigandish wrote: post #905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Testing rate is a meaningless statistic, because the criteria for testing vary between countries and over time. Testing is useful for two reasons - helping people who may have the disease (obviously), and for seroprevalence. Since Japan's testing was so low those seroprevalence statistics are lacking. As we know now, severity of the disease is linked to the overall health of the individual. It's quite possible thos…

> It's quite possible those waves you call nontrivial were just as large but that the health of the population meant the severity of symptoms (which is what actually makes a wave trivial or not, along with availability of health services) was lower and continued to be lower. That's why you should not look at individual data points in isolation. Based on the numbers that were reported, the COVID waves that hit Japan b…

> Based on the numbers that were reported,

And there's the reason testing to get seroprevalence data is so important, because what follows that sentence is pure speculation.

> If you compare internationally, you can find similar patterns in countries that mostly managed to avoid COVID in 2020 and 2021 before succumbing to Omicron.

Again,

- Japan had no internal lockdown

- International travel still occurred

- Contact tracing does not work in a pandemic, especially one for a respiratory virus that has already spread[1], closing the barn doors after the horse has bolted is not a valid proposition as actual seroprevalence testing showed in early 2020 that contradicted official figures:

> Results: ... These numbers were 396 to 858-fold more than confirmed cases with PCR testing in Kobe City.

> Conclusions: Our cross-sectional serological study suggests that the number of people with seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in Kobe, Japan is far more than the confirmed cases by PCR testing.

There are more of these types of study[2][3], if you care to look, that hint more that heavily at the reality.

> Results: We estimated that as of December 31, 2021, 3.07 million (CrI: 2.05-4.24 million) people had been infected in Japan, which is 1.77 times higher than the 1.73 million reported cases. Our meta-analysis confirmed that these findings were consistent with the intermittent seroprevalence studies conducted in Japan.

and

> In conclusion, our cross-sectional serological study suggests that the actual number of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Kobe, Japan was estimated to be lower than our previous study, yet was more than the confirmed cases by PCR testing.

Lockdown logic is not valid, in theory or reality. Stay slim, stay active and your country too can remain largely unaffected[4], in a way that is statistically significant - to the point it hits one over the head with a hammer - and backed up by actual evidence, unlike lockdowns and masks.

> There was a consistent dose‒response association across lower physical activity categories, with the strongest association comparing the always active with the always inactive category. Patients in the always inactive category (median EVS≤10 minutes/week) had 91% higher odds of hospitalization (OR=1.91; 95% CI=1.68, 2.17), 139% higher odds of a deterioration event (Appendix Figure 2, available online) (OR=2.39; 95% CI=1.94, 2.94), and 291% higher odds of death (OR=3.91; 95% CI=3.01, 5.07) than patients in the always active category.

and from[5], the most succinct and blunt way to put it:

> Is overweight associated with the severity of COVID-19 and the need for hospital treatment?

> Yes.

The figures speak for themselves. Worth a read, I highly recommend it.

Finally, this assertion of yours is patently false:

> but fewer deaths from Omicron, largely due to existing immunity.

South Africa has entered the chat.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33898863/#article-details

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35961504/#article-details

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9191319/#main-c...

[4] https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(22)00526-8/ful...

[5] https://www.worldobesity.org/resources/resource-library/covi...

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#966

Post by t0bia_s »

cbsmith wrote: post #959
t0bia_s wrote: post #955

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those get a new name. Hoax, fake news, relativisation, anti-whatever, propaganda, PR...

Wait, are you asserting that calling them "conspiracy theory" implies they fit people's predispositions?

Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post?

Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic.

It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#967

Post by Rastonbury »

poszlem wrote: post #882
Rastonbury wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks that site's pretty cool

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#968

Post by cbsmith »

t0bia_s wrote: post #966
cbsmith wrote: post #959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, are you asserting that calling them "conspiracy theory" implies they fit people's predispositions?

Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post? Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic. It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view.

> Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post?

Really not.

> Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic.

>

> It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view.

I think you've lost the thread here. You seem to be arguing against yourself. I'm not assigning a pejorative categorization or speaking to whether a particular story is or isn't a conspiracy theory.

All I'm saying is that, by their very nature, if a conspiracy theory didn't look like it was true to its audience, it wouldn't have much of an audience, and I provided a link to a pretty detailed explanation of how the phenomenon works.

I'm surprised you find this controversial, but it's entirely possible I'm wrong. I'd honestly love to hear something that explains how conspiracy theories that don't look like they are true to their audience nonetheless do garner an audience.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#969

Post by t0bia_s »

cbsmith wrote: post #968
t0bia_s wrote: post #966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post? Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic. It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view.

> Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post? Really not. > Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic. > > It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view. I think you've lost the thread here. You seem to be arguing against yourself. I'm not assigning a pejorat…

"All I'm saying is that, by their very nature, if a conspiracy theory didn't look like it was true to its audience, it wouldn't have much of an audience..."

I don't think thats allways true. For example cremation masses in concentration camps during WW2 was so horrible that noone sane believe it. So then come denial not only of this information but also those who spread it. Similar phenomenon we se nowdays. Audience comes when those who spread those information (Im not judge validation of it) are suppressed. This makes interest.

Sorry, I'm not native English speaker, my expression in words is limited.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#970

Post by jltsiren »

brigandish wrote: post #965
jltsiren wrote: post #957

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's quite possible those waves you call nontrivial were just as large but that the health of the population meant the severity of symptoms (which is what actually makes a wave trivial or not, along with availability of health services) was lower and continued to be lower. That's why you should not look at individual data points in isolation. Based on the numbers that were reported, the COVID waves that hit Japan b…

> Based on the numbers that were reported, And there's the reason testing to get seroprevalence data is so important, because what follows that sentence is pure speculation. > If you compare internationally, you can find similar patterns in countries that mostly managed to avoid COVID in 2020 and 2021 before succumbing to Omicron. Again, - Japan had no internal lockdown - International travel still occurred - Contact…

~3 million estimated infections by the end of 2021 is a very low number for a country the size of Japan. Many other countries already had 5x to 10x more confirmed cases per capita at that point, and the reported numbers were usually assumed to be 2x to 3x too low.

50% of reported COVID deaths in Japan have occurred since April 2022. In most Western countries, the median death was about a year earlier. That difference suggests that whatever Japan did in 2020-2021, it helped them to avoid infections during that time. Differences in case mortality rates don't explain numbers like that.

Infectious diseases do not care about pandemics and other administrative classifications. Contact tracing works as long as the rate of new infections remains low enough. For example, most Nordic countries managed to enjoy a relatively normal summer 2020, because contact tracing was able to keep up with new infections for several months.

Post reply on HN