491–500 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be honest - baseless speculation because HN clearly shares all the same biases of the rest of big tech: https://i.imgur.com/Si183zE.jpg
A bias towards the party that isn't actively trying to dismantle Amercian democracy? Ooh, scary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be ridiculous. Claims that were classified as COVID misinformation include: - surgical masks don't work against aerosol viruses - lockdowns and curfews will not stop covid - natural immunity due to prior infection is more effective - mRNA shots don't stop transmission - mRNA shots don't stop infection - mRNA shots cause myocarditis One by one these have been revealed as true, with naysayers looking like ass-cov…
Claims (2, 4, 5, 6) are very weak because you are making them absolutes (e.g. "don't stop"). By themselves, these 4 claims don't tell us what our plan of action should be. They become misinformation when they are used as recommondations because they are missing so much context. For example, claim (6) about myocarditis is usually used to say that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided. This is a wrongheaded exam…
An intramuscular shot cannot create a targeted immune response in the mucus membranes of the airways. This was known, and ignored, making the idea of getting a shot to protect grandma a complete lie.
The goal posts have moved so much that even the word vaccine was redefined, thus tainting the concept and creating a ton of justified skepticism. Like really, do you not realize how ridiculous you sound to ordinary people, trying to rule lawyer your way past this elephant in the room?
The point about myocarditis remains that informed consent should have been asked for, and that they shouldn't have authorized an emergency medicine when due diligence wasn't done. Quite frankly, I don't believe covid is more dangerous than the jab. I don't believe we live in an environment atm where the truth is being investigated objectively. And this is an entirely reasonable belief, given the undeniable corruption and lies.
Like, you know how it takes 2 weeks after your shot before you count as vaccinated? Guess which category vaccine injuries in the first two weeks were attributed to in many cases... that is the level intellectual honesty we're dealing with here. It's detestable.
As for natural immunity: the point here is that forcing people with prior exposure to get jabbed anyway was immoral and unnecessary. This is the _very important_ point you are missing. And you think you're making sense!
Human rights were violated, in the name of shoddy science, endorsed by people who are much more eager to dunk on the rubes and appear sophisticated, than actually establishing reasonable and objective standards.
Go sit in shame, and stfu. Nobody wants to hear it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The network is the value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect But what matters beyond the network is how well it can be utilized by users. That layer of tools and functionality on top of the network is where Twitter could charge users. Particularly power users and businesses that can justify spending some money on it because they get so much value or even generate revenue from it.
Twitter was already trying this with Twitter Blue. It was not wildly successful. Certainly not successful enough to replace advertising. As for the network effect … that's the point of "the value comes from the users."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is musk hanging out with or reading that encourages his crazy views; he didn't use to be that way, I almost feel sorry that one of the world's riches people is so full of self-justifying bs. For most humans, the idea that you'd laugh at an attack on an 80 year person with a hammer in their home is horrible, out of bounds. There's no reason to believe this story is true of course, but on top of not laughing at hor…
> Who is musk hanging out with or reading that encourages his crazy views I don't get where this line of thought comes from. Why must it be someone else who is encouraging him? He's a middle aged man who is the wealthiest person in the world by some metrics. He should own his words and actions and can't blame others. When people show you who they are, believe them. Which means he probably is the kind of person who wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being invited by Republicans to speak before Congress is just more evidence that Andy Ngo is far right, from my perspective. I guess as long as you hold that being invited by Democrats to speak before Congress makes someone far left, that would be fair.
Perhaps. Let's look at Andy Ngo's invitation in context. Republican lawmakers asked him to testify during hearings about the January 6 insurrection attempt. His testimony mainly aimed to downplay the feeble insurrection attempt, and shift focus to riots. Of course, he fails to mention that the riots were often directly caused by police action. https://www.courthousenews.com/domestic-terror-still-thorny-... https://ww…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who is musk hanging out with or reading that encourages his crazy views I don't get where this line of thought comes from. Why must it be someone else who is encouraging him? He's a middle aged man who is the wealthiest person in the world by some metrics. He should own his words and actions and can't blame others. When people show you who they are, believe them. Which means he probably is the kind of person who wo…
That's a great point. Someone can be incredibly successful and be that horrible person, lol-ing at someone else's suffering. I want it not to be that way, but he does seem to be telling us who he is.
It's just my opinion, but I would go further and say "lol-ing at someone else's suffering" can actually help with becoming incredibly successful (though obviously it's not enough by itself). This is especially the case in spaces where success involves crossing ethical or legal lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their rhetoric is inherently more violent[0] in ways that were easier to detect. Do you have any evidence for this generalization? The only overt violent threats I’ve seen on Twitter are men encouraging rape and murder of JK Rowling and other supporters of women’s rights. I don’t know if they’re “right wing” or not, but their surrounding rhetoric is what’s usually associated loosely with the “left”. But surely this…
Definitely not doing the "she's not transphobic, really" argument any favors here by calling transwomen "men."
Perhaps this is your inner transphobe trying to come out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone shown actual data that proves Twitter has dropped the ball on this front, despite all the raging commentary about how many people have been let go or left?
To me it was obvious without the numbers. Saw a spike in "hateful conduct and abusive behaviour" in replies on tweets by others, though I think it subsided again. A number of accounts went private. Myself got burned by using Twitter search in public places as innocent queries started returning porn media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me it was obvious without the numbers. Saw a spike in "hateful conduct and abusive behaviour" in replies on tweets by others, though I think it subsided again. A number of accounts went private. Myself got burned by using Twitter search in public places as innocent queries started returning porn media.
If we're just using anecdata, every single person I've seen comment about it on Twitter says nothing has changed. I haven't seen any difference.