How Twitter moderated the Covid debate • Hacker News Board

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#831

Post by jakear » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:17 PM UTC

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…

another nice one for you: “oh don’t worry we totally won’t use these covid trackers to police you in completely unrelated matters” // “oh yah nah we 100% are doing that”

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/1606381652216893440

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#832

Post by HDThoreaun » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:22 PM UTC

ohCh6zos wrote: post #181

HDThoreaun wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one uses unmoderated platforms. Twitter has a fiduciary duty to make sure their platform has a good reputation with users and advertisers. That means moderation.

All of the really fun platforms are unmoderated, but they keep getting taken down due to pressure campaigns.

They get taken down because they can’t make any money so no one is willing to fight for them.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#833

Post by samhuk » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:25 PM UTC

The number of comments in this thread that so casually defend what I think is honestly somewhat comparable to an Edward Snowden-level infringement on freedom is honestly depressing.

It deeply confuses me how some people, some who are obviously very smart, value censorship and government-enforced-truth over freedom of speech and expression.

Where did it go wrong? How did we get here? IMHO this isn't about "culture war" or "left v right" anymore, but instead about how did a large number of people so casually abandon fundamental human rights.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#834

Post by danShumway » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:28 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #820

timerol wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Vulnerable" is an odd word to use there. "Ideological splitting" is the way humans have interacted since the Tower of Babel. Forcing everyone into the same conversation is a guaranteed way to produce conflict. I would say "Mastodon facilitates ideological splitting as a way to have more pleasant conversations and less absurd arguments."

Prolonged non hostile exposure is what prevents conflict. Otherwise you get radicalization.

Isn't this kind of orthogonal to the free speech debate?

There are reasons to be worried about community silos, but my point wasn't that Mastodon is perfect, it was that it's more resistant to censorship than Twitter is (particularly government censorship).

Having large community spaces where everyone interacts might be a worthy goal, but those spaces are often going to require a larger degree of moderation and policing to stay civil. It's a tradeoff that (as far as I can tell) Musk doesn't seem to advocate for -- his policy seems to be that people should block/mute whatever they disagree with, and the platform shouldn't make that decision for them. If that's someone's approach to free speech and they want individual or small-group control rather than platform-wide standards, then Mastodon is a pretty interesting implementation of that idea.

Compare this with something like HN -- there's one feed for everyone and limited blocking tools. That forces everyone to interact with each other, but also means that HN mods and users are both a lot more involved in debating what stories are allowed and how discourse is conducted, and those decisions impact more of the community when they're made.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#835

Post by peter422 » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:29 PM UTC

at_a_remove wrote: post #821

peter422 wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, so someone in a labcoat tackles me, gives me a shot, tells me it is for my own good, then runs off. That's ... okay? The end result is irrelevant . It's the "she had an orgasm, so how could it be rape?" defense. The recipient must consent, and they must be in full possession of the facts for them to make that decision. Even if it is a decision you do not agree with, it is still theirs to make.

The government didn't do that though (even though they could have!). Tons of people remain unvaccinated, though I acknowledge in certain cases the person had to find a different job more compatible with their inability to do risk analysis.

Remember also that if you get sick and go to an ER, they are required by law to treat you. The society has an interest in preserving this legally required service to be available to it's people.

You weep at the lack of informed consent for the vaccine but have no concern for the person who bleeds out in a car accident because the EMTs were overwhelmed with COVID patients who had completely preventable serious disease.

You don't want to take a measles vaccine due to the potential side effects (remember: nothing is perfectly safe), but yet want to live under the protection of everybody else who did take it.

If you choose to live in a society you gotta take one for the team every now and again. Sometimes the government is wrong and it sucks, but this was not one of those times!

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#836

Post by twblalock » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:30 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #763

foota wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about censored, but from what I remember there was a bit of an about face on masking. This timeline seems to mesh with what I remember: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd... And I think some platforms (specifically, I believe YouTube and Twitter, but maybe others) prevented or de-funded etc., content that was contradictory to CDC guidelines.

Some lies are necessary. Put yourself in the shoes of a public health official. You just got home from shopping for groceries, and the whole toilet paper aisle was empty. You know very well that the same thing will happen with masks and other PPE needed by medical personnel if you tell the truth, and that this will likely result in an even-higher death toll. What do you do?

You tell the truth, because if you tell such an obvious lie it will reduce trust in all future public health announcements!

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#837

Post by ohCh6zos » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:40 PM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #218

belltaco wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like extreme confirmation bias. Just a couple of counterpoints: Everyone taking the vaccine was supposed to be long dead. Women taking it were supposed to be sterile, and men too. There are billions of people who took and still... barely anything.

Exactly. Contrarians have this utterly weird propensity to demand the "official" or "mainstream" opinion be perfectly accurate, while holding absolutely no standards for the other side of the debate. "Just asking questions", etc.

It is not unreasonable to demand the censor be 100% correct all the time while also not demanding all silenced opinions be equally valid. The burden when you will not allow others to spread their ideas is sheer perfection.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#838

Post by phpisthebest » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:42 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #827

phpisthebest wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that did not happen? I know for sure the consolidated and moved around positions. Just because the people salty they got fired from their job due to poor performance, and political basis does not mean they did not put people in those positions. Personally I think the platform is better today. The most "journalist" scream about it being unsafe the more I believe Elon is doing a great job, because I do…

> How do you know that did not happen? Because Twitter's staff numbers are public? What are you talking about, are you going to try and claim that Twitter has the same number of moderators now that it used to? It doesn't. This is not something that's debatable, Twitter's moderation teams today are smaller than they were before he took over the company. > Under what basis to you believe Twitters lawyers were the "best…

>>Because Twitter's staff numbers are public? What are you talking about

Where? that was true when they were a public company and such things were part of the Investor reports, and SEC filings, but as a private company I dont think that data is public anymore.

>>This is not something that's debatable

Everything is debatable, I will debate if the sky is blue

>Twitter's moderation teams today are smaller than they were before he took over the company.

The question is not raw numbers but the effective nature of the teams. I think there was ALOT of babysitting jobs at pre-elon twitter, people not doing a whole lot of actual work, i.e Wine on Tap, meditation rooms, etc like the "day in the life" videos showed

I am sure they were having alot of meetings about doing work, but very little work being done

>>They did what lawyers are supposed to do, they showed up in court

would it surprise you to learn that a good percentage of lawyers never go to court at all? Specifically corporate lawyers?

>>Twitter's lawyers took on government cases and challenged police orders that other social media companies would have rolled over and accepted

This is false, other companies have taken objections to government over reach as well, I think you have a rose colored view of their legal team. I will fully admit I am biased agaist them because clearly did not like or want to have people like me speaking on the platform. I wonder if you can recognize you bais in favor of them where by you simply forgive, forget or excuse all their bad behavior because they did a a few small good things

to me they were a net negative for free expression, I am sure you disagree simply because the speech you like was not suppressed, and the speech you think should be suppressed on the platform was.

>but he has literally just gutted these teams

That is actually false, there were separate teams dealing with moderation, CSAM was not under the same team, he infact gutted the other teams and expanded the resources for the people working on CSAM.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#839

Post by ohCh6zos » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:43 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #565

MikeLumos wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big part of the problem - a group of people have unilaterally decided that they're the grown up ones, and they know better, and dismiss everyone else as toddlers. Using that wonderful justification, they proceeded to censor everyone who disagrees with them, including the points of view that later turned out to be correct. When you decide that you're a smart adult, declare every dissenting viewpoint to be "di…

They are turning on the microchips Bill Gates implanted in everyone any day now . Even Trump has had 3+ vaccines. I don’t really understand what we are debating as two equivalent sides here.

This is an exceptionally uncharitable interpretation of GP's statement.

Re: How Twitter moderated the Covid debate

#840

Post by at_a_remove » Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 8:48 PM UTC

peter422 wrote: post #835

at_a_remove wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so someone in a labcoat tackles me, gives me a shot, tells me it is for my own good, then runs off. That's ... okay? The end result is irrelevant . It's the "she had an orgasm, so how could it be rape?" defense. The recipient must consent, and they must be in full possession of the facts for them to make that decision. Even if it is a decision you do not agree with, it is still theirs to make.

The government didn't do that though (even though they could have!). Tons of people remain unvaccinated, though I acknowledge in certain cases the person had to find a different job more compatible with their inability to do risk analysis. Remember also that if you get sick and go to an ER, they are required by law to treat you. The society has an interest in preserving this legally required service to be available t…

Oh, I have taken the vaccines. I just believe that informed consent is always a must. I should be informed of the side effects, all of them. Hiding them from me is not an option.

I guess we fundamentally disagree on the need for informed consent. I believe that "you don't get to know that" is not acceptable, no matter how well-meaning people are. We used to sterilize people without telling them, under the exact same auspices (Buck vs. Bell). I quote Oliver Wendell Holmes "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

So don't read about the side effects of anything you are prescribed, I would still like to.