Elon Musk joins Twitter board of directors after becoming its largest shareholder

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.
    Examples?
    Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.
    It would likely be quicker to type a single name than it would to type "too numerous to list".
    doozydozenronnbaconstangroundaboutnowjony0
  • Reply 22 of 46
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    byronl said:
    hopefully twitter’s censorship problem will get better
    They don't have a censorship problem. They're a private website with a terms of use agreement, just like Alex Jones' own web forums and Trump's Truth Social do. If users violate the agreed upon terms of use, it's completely fine for them to be booted. What the terms are is up to the company, Twitter doesn't allow spreading disinformation, threatening people, calls for violence, etc. That's fine. ...
    Calls to imminent violence should be acted upon by law enforcement.  Social media would have a legal responsibility to shut these calls down.  But when it comes to purported disinformation I could not disagree more.

    We hear and see disinformation every day coming out of the mouths of politicians of all stripes.  Many politicians sprinkled their opinions with truths that are only a slice of the total picture, which are designed to appeal to their voters.  And these truths are often commingled with lies, fabrications, and wild exaggerations.  Yet it is all unquestioningly accepted as political posturing and debate.  Shutting down scientific enquiry is equally egregious and indefensible.

    Jack Dorsey was deeply uncomfortable with what Twitter and Facebook had become.  Some believe that is why he left the company.  He no longer believed in what he unwittingly helped to create, in social media's lack of diversity, and in the power these huge companies wielded over so many.  The private company argument holds no water with behemoths like Twitter and Facebook, which have unrivaled power to silence and destroy those with views they do not agree with or believe are untrue.  Traditional media is bad enough.  Social media has only made it worse.  You want to throw the legal argument of 'terms of use' or 'terms of service' agreements around then something else needs to happen in the form of regulation, of which I'm not a fan.  But these companies are too powerful and have too broad a reach to let that fly as a valid reason.

    I had no stake in Parlor.  I could have cared less.  I wasn't interested in joining.  But to witness Silicon Valley act almost in unison with political and media allies to shut down potential competition was deeply disturbing.  Trust has been lost and it will be sometime before it is restored, if ever.
    edited April 2022 muthuk_vanalingamcgWerkswatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 46
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.
    Examples?
    Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.
    It would likely be quicker to type a single name than it would to type "too numerous to list".
    Go for it.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 46
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.
    Examples?
    Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.
    It would likely be quicker to type a single name than it would to type "too numerous to list".
    Go for it.
    The only person am really aware of is Robert Malone.  I'm not in your bubble.  if you can give a name, just one, I'd appreciate it.  As I said, if the number are too numerous to list then there's almost certainly a single name that is quicker to type than "Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal."  

    You wasted much more of your time than you needed.  Almost as if you don't actually have an answer and are just stalling for time.
    ronnbaconstangroundaboutnowjony0
  • Reply 25 of 46
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.
    Examples?
    Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.
    It would likely be quicker to type a single name than it would to type "too numerous to list".
    Go for it.
    The only person am really aware of is Robert Malone.  I'm not in your bubble.  if you can give a name, just one, I'd appreciate it.  As I said, if the number are too numerous to list then there's almost certainly a single name that is quicker to type than "Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal."  

    You wasted much more of your time than you needed.  Almost as if you don't actually have an answer and are just stalling for time.
    I do have answers.  They're easy to find.  I'm familiar with Dr. Malone, his history, and all that transpired.  But I'm not going to play that game where I list a name and then someone says, "Well, they said something wrong, or something bad, or something I strongly disagree with."  Not going there.  It's not the point.

    The point is that 20-something Silicon Valley people with no particular expertise feel free to silence others that have expertise in their respective fields.  When Twitter fact checkers are wrong, and they frequently are, they are not held accountable.  That is not acceptable behavior for a large publicly traded social media company.  They are ill suited to the task of determining what constitutes disinformation.  And it is not their place to do so.  They end up doing a great disservice to all.
    cgWerkswatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 46
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.
    Examples?
    Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.
    It would likely be quicker to type a single name than it would to type "too numerous to list".
    Go for it.
    The only person am really aware of is Robert Malone.  I'm not in your bubble.  if you can give a name, just one, I'd appreciate it.  As I said, if the number are too numerous to list then there's almost certainly a single name that is quicker to type than "Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal."  

    You wasted much more of your time than you needed.  Almost as if you don't actually have an answer and are just stalling for time.
    I do have answers.  They're easy to find.  I'm familiar with Dr. Malone, his history, and all that transpired.  But I'm not going to play that game where I list a name and then someone says, "Well, they said something wrong, or something bad, or something I strongly disagree with."  Not going there.  It's not the point.

    The point is that 20-something Silicon Valley people with no particular expertise feel free to silence others that have expertise in their respective fields.  When Twitter fact checkers are wrong, and they frequently are, they are not held accountable.  That is not acceptable behavior for a large publicly traded social media company.  They are ill suited to the task of determining what constitutes disinformation.  And it is not their place to do so.  They end up doing a great disservice to all.
    For any of that to have any credibility you're going to need to cite an example of someone with "expertise in their respective field" who was "silenced" for "spreading misinformation" and be able to prove reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually misinformation.

    I've never seen anyone do that.  They just moan that operators of a private company shouldn't be able to operate it privately.  Total freedom of speech for liars at the expense of freedom of property for those who try stop the lies, eh?

    You're welcome to not use Twitter.  No one is making you.
    baconstangronnroundaboutnowjony0
  • Reply 27 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    He has a long road ahead of him, given that he can't just fire a bunch of them and start over. But, I wish him all the best. Twitter is highly infected.
    JWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    bluefire1 said:
    This is the best news for Twitter in a long time. Finally someone’s on board who opposes censorship and will allow people who believe in different political narratives to have their say. 
    Private companies can censor anything they want. That isn't what "free speech" means. 
    In non-detail-principal, I suppose. In reality, if said companies are acting in certain ways or wielding too much political influence, etc. that might get challenged by greater powers. Just like there end up being practical limits on free-speech, there are also such limits on censorship.

    crowley said:
    Since hate speech, criminality and falsehoods are the only political things even remotely censored from Twitter (and not massively effectively) it's pretty clear why that equivalence is relevant.
    LOL, ROFL...
    (I once got my Twitter account suspended for quoting Fauci from a virology podcast... just FYI)

    JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.
    Examples?
    Do you want me to spend days on here typing? I'd actually give it a shot if I didn't think the tread would just get pulled down anyway.

    byronl said:
    hopefully twitter’s censorship problem will get better
    They don't have a censorship problem. They're a private website with a terms of use ...
    The, 'yes, they're doing something bad, but trust me, I can defend it' post.

    The Atlantic?! (This thread gets funnier by the moment.)
    JWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 46
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    cgWerks said:
    The Atlantic?! (This thread gets funnier by the moment.)
    You dispute the article?  Or you think it's sufficiently convincing to use extra exclamation points?

    I'm not even aware of any controversy around the credibility of The Atlantic's reporting.  It's an old, venerable and multi-award winning publication.  You're going to need to give me more than the LOLs.
    ronnjony0
  • Reply 30 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    crowley said:
    For any of that to have any credibility you're going to need to cite an example of someone with "expertise in their respective field" who was "silenced" for "spreading misinformation" and be able to prove reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually misinformation.

    I've never seen anyone do that.  They just moan that operators of a private company shouldn't be able to operate it privately.  Total freedom of speech for liars at the expense of freedom of property for those who try stop the lies, eh?
    Then you haven't been looking too hard. My gosh, the entire narrative within Covid-19 fiasco flip-flopped multiple times already, and people got silenced and worse for what is now considered nearly common knowledge. Just look up a few of the top signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration. Whether you ultimately agree with their positions or not, they are top people in their field.

    But, you asked for one, so I'll give you one I'm highly familiar with. In about July of 2020, Dr Fauci was on a virology podcast, discussing PCR testing. As part of the conversation, they noted how samples that showed positive into the mid and upper 30 cycles, were almost certainly not able to be cultured. In other words, false-positives. At the time, most of the labs were running over 40 cycles. I (and many others) who tried to get this information out (including top virologists), had our posts taken down or even accounts suspended (as did I).

    If you still think this is misinformation, I'm happy to debate that point with you. I've done so successfully online with a PhD who runs a testing lab, and won. I don't understand all the terminology and 100% of the process, but I'm completely solid on the principal involved and why it was problematic in this whole Covid crisis.
    JWSCmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 46
    viclauyycviclauyyc Posts: 849member
    bluefire1 said:
    This is the best news for Twitter in a long time. Finally someone’s on board who opposes censorship and will allow people who believe in different political narratives to have their say. 
    So if Hitler is alive today, you will be ok for him to tweet about killing Jews and invade other countries?
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 32 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    crowley said:
    cgWerks said:
    The Atlantic?! (This thread gets funnier by the moment.)
    You dispute the article?  Or you think it's sufficiently convincing to use extra exclamation points?

    I'm not even aware of any controversy around the credibility of The Atlantic's reporting.  It's an old, venerable and multi-award winning publication.  You're going to need to give me more than the LOLs.
    Fair enough. Neither of us really provided any actual evidence there.

    I'd just consider Malone's claims, credentials, background and then hold them up against that article. My take on it (admittedly, not having done a deep dive), is that The Atlantic article was a 'hit piece' while Malone was over-hyping his title initially before the whole debate broke out. (It is a bit odd that I've never seen anyone debating Malone's credibility point to anything OTHER than that Atlantic article.)

    I've also seen very few attempts to correct anything Malone has said (aside from making a big fuss over a couple obvious misspeaks). They always go after him and his claim to be the mRNA inventor.
    JWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    viclauyyc said:
    bluefire1 said:
    This is the best news for Twitter in a long time. Finally someone’s on board who opposes censorship and will allow people who believe in different political narratives to have their say. 
    So if Hitler is alive today, you will be ok for him to tweet about killing Jews and invade other countries?
    I think that would violate the content policies of every platform, even the free-speech ones like Gab, et. al.
    That isn't what we're discussing here.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 46
    Funny that the folks saying that certain companies have too much power and influence and need to be reigned in aren’t advocating for the return of the fairness doctrine or it’s a application to certain large media companies that are mouthpieces for entities looking to deflect critical inquiry into their activities. Interpret that how you will. 
    ronnjony0
  • Reply 35 of 46
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,746member
    cgWerks said:
    crowley said:
    For any of that to have any credibility you're going to need to cite an example of someone with "expertise in their respective field" who was "silenced" for "spreading misinformation" and be able to prove reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually misinformation.

    I've never seen anyone do that.  They just moan that operators of a private company shouldn't be able to operate it privately.  Total freedom of speech for liars at the expense of freedom of property for those who try stop the lies, eh?
    Then you haven't been looking too hard. My gosh, the entire narrative within Covid-19 fiasco flip-flopped multiple times already, and people got silenced and worse for what is now considered nearly common knowledge. Just look up a few of the top signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration. Whether you ultimately agree with their positions or not, they are top people in their field.

    But, you asked for one, so I'll give you one I'm highly familiar with. In about July of 2020, Dr Fauci was on a virology podcast, discussing PCR testing. As part of the conversation, they noted how samples that showed positive into the mid and upper 30 cycles, were almost certainly not able to be cultured. In other words, false-positives. At the time, most of the labs were running over 40 cycles. I (and many others) who tried to get this information out (including top virologists), had our posts taken down or even accounts suspended (as did I).

    If you still think this is misinformation, I'm happy to debate that point with you. I've done so successfully online with a PhD who runs a testing lab, and won. I don't understand all the terminology and 100% of the process, but I'm completely solid on the principal involved and why it was problematic in this whole Covid crisis.
    Everyone I've debated with online about things like the effectiveness of masks and similar ends up pointing to articles from websites which have zero credibility, or pointing to the words of experts but with no links to the peer-reviewed studies which back their words up.  I just intrinsically assume that everyone is out to gain something for themselves (money, fame, etc) unless there's actual research to back them up.

    I'd love to see a truly rational debate where direct cause-and-effect are spelled out in clear terms with references to peer-reviewed studies as proof.  No linguistic tricks or persuasive language, no thought experiments which are unrelated to reality, no fake websites with agendas, just clear and rational arguments spelled out with hard evidence to back it up.  I've yet to see anything like that online.
    edited April 2022 ronnjony0
  • Reply 36 of 46
    auxio said:
    cgWerks said:
    crowley said:
    For any of that to have any credibility you're going to need to cite an example of someone with "expertise in their respective field" who was "silenced" for "spreading misinformation" and be able to prove reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually misinformation.

    I've never seen anyone do that.  They just moan that operators of a private company shouldn't be able to operate it privately.  Total freedom of speech for liars at the expense of freedom of property for those who try stop the lies, eh?
    Then you haven't been looking too hard. My gosh, the entire narrative within Covid-19 fiasco flip-flopped multiple times already, and people got silenced and worse for what is now considered nearly common knowledge. Just look up a few of the top signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration. Whether you ultimately agree with their positions or not, they are top people in their field.

    But, you asked for one, so I'll give you one I'm highly familiar with. In about July of 2020, Dr Fauci was on a virology podcast, discussing PCR testing. As part of the conversation, they noted how samples that showed positive into the mid and upper 30 cycles, were almost certainly not able to be cultured. In other words, false-positives. At the time, most of the labs were running over 40 cycles. I (and many others) who tried to get this information out (including top virologists), had our posts taken down or even accounts suspended (as did I).

    If you still think this is misinformation, I'm happy to debate that point with you. I've done so successfully online with a PhD who runs a testing lab, and won. I don't understand all the terminology and 100% of the process, but I'm completely solid on the principal involved and why it was problematic in this whole Covid crisis.
    Everyone I've debated with online about things like the effectiveness of masks and similar ends up pointing to articles from websites which have zero credibility, or pointing to the words of experts but with no links to the peer-reviewed studies which back their words up.  I just intrinsically assume that everyone is out to gain something for themselves (money, fame, etc) unless there's actual research to back them up.

    I'd love to see a truly rational debate where direct cause-and-effect are spelled out in clear terms with references to peer-reviewed studies as proof.  No linguistic tricks or persuasive language, no thought experiments which are unrelated to reality, no fake websites with agendas, just clear and rational arguments spelled out with hard evidence to back it up.  I've yet to see anything like that online.
    I am sure that you are talking about the anti-vaccine group in this post. Just curious to know whether you saw such details from pro-vaccine group?
  • Reply 37 of 46
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,746member
    auxio said:
    cgWerks said:
    crowley said:
    For any of that to have any credibility you're going to need to cite an example of someone with "expertise in their respective field" who was "silenced" for "spreading misinformation" and be able to prove reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually misinformation.

    I've never seen anyone do that.  They just moan that operators of a private company shouldn't be able to operate it privately.  Total freedom of speech for liars at the expense of freedom of property for those who try stop the lies, eh?
    Then you haven't been looking too hard. My gosh, the entire narrative within Covid-19 fiasco flip-flopped multiple times already, and people got silenced and worse for what is now considered nearly common knowledge. Just look up a few of the top signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration. Whether you ultimately agree with their positions or not, they are top people in their field.

    But, you asked for one, so I'll give you one I'm highly familiar with. In about July of 2020, Dr Fauci was on a virology podcast, discussing PCR testing. As part of the conversation, they noted how samples that showed positive into the mid and upper 30 cycles, were almost certainly not able to be cultured. In other words, false-positives. At the time, most of the labs were running over 40 cycles. I (and many others) who tried to get this information out (including top virologists), had our posts taken down or even accounts suspended (as did I).

    If you still think this is misinformation, I'm happy to debate that point with you. I've done so successfully online with a PhD who runs a testing lab, and won. I don't understand all the terminology and 100% of the process, but I'm completely solid on the principal involved and why it was problematic in this whole Covid crisis.
    Everyone I've debated with online about things like the effectiveness of masks and similar ends up pointing to articles from websites which have zero credibility, or pointing to the words of experts but with no links to the peer-reviewed studies which back their words up.  I just intrinsically assume that everyone is out to gain something for themselves (money, fame, etc) unless there's actual research to back them up.

    I'd love to see a truly rational debate where direct cause-and-effect are spelled out in clear terms with references to peer-reviewed studies as proof.  No linguistic tricks or persuasive language, no thought experiments which are unrelated to reality, no fake websites with agendas, just clear and rational arguments spelled out with hard evidence to back it up.  I've yet to see anything like that online.
    I am sure that you are talking about the anti-vaccine group in this post. Just curious to know whether you saw such details from pro-vaccine group?
    Neither.  I speak with friends in the medical community and get pointers to peer-reviewed medical research like the WHO database so I can form my own opinions independent of all the gut reactions dressed up with words that people get caught up in on social media.  If I find the language is too complex, I ask someone to translate it for me.
    muthuk_vanalingamjony0
  • Reply 38 of 46
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    cgWerks said:
    crowley said:
    For any of that to have any credibility you're going to need to cite an example of someone with "expertise in their respective field" who was "silenced" for "spreading misinformation" and be able to prove reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually misinformation.

    I've never seen anyone do that.  They just moan that operators of a private company shouldn't be able to operate it privately.  Total freedom of speech for liars at the expense of freedom of property for those who try stop the lies, eh?
    Then you haven't been looking too hard. My gosh, the entire narrative within Covid-19 fiasco flip-flopped multiple times already, and people got silenced and worse for what is now considered nearly common knowledge. Just look up a few of the top signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration. Whether you ultimately agree with their positions or not, they are top people in their field.

    But, you asked for one, so I'll give you one I'm highly familiar with. In about July of 2020, Dr Fauci was on a virology podcast, discussing PCR testing. As part of the conversation, they noted how samples that showed positive into the mid and upper 30 cycles, were almost certainly not able to be cultured. In other words, false-positives. At the time, most of the labs were running over 40 cycles. I (and many others) who tried to get this information out (including top virologists), had our posts taken down or even accounts suspended (as did I).

    If you still think this is misinformation, I'm happy to debate that point with you. I've done so successfully online with a PhD who runs a testing lab, and won. I don't understand all the terminology and 100% of the process, but I'm completely solid on the principal involved and why it was problematic in this whole Covid crisis.
    Everyone I've debated with online about things like the effectiveness of masks and similar ends up pointing to articles from websites which have zero credibility, or pointing to the words of experts but with no links to the peer-reviewed studies which back their words up.  I just intrinsically assume that everyone is out to gain something for themselves (money, fame, etc) unless there's actual research to back them up.

    I'd love to see a truly rational debate where direct cause-and-effect are spelled out in clear terms with references to peer-reviewed studies as proof.  No linguistic tricks or persuasive language, no thought experiments which are unrelated to reality, no fake websites with agendas, just clear and rational arguments spelled out with hard evidence to back it up.  I've yet to see anything like that online.
    I am sure that you are talking about the anti-vaccine group in this post. Just curious to know whether you saw such details from pro-vaccine group?
    Neither.  I speak with friends in the medical community and get pointers to peer-reviewed medical research like the WHO database so I can form my own opinions independent of all the gut reactions dressed up with words that people get caught up in on social media.  If I find the language is too complex, I ask someone to translate it for me.
    Ok, Thanks for the clarification. This is where FB/Twitter banning one side of arguments (anti vaccine) and allowing only one side (pro vaccine) to say whatever they want to say becomes a problem. I get that they are private platforms so do not come under the laws related to free speech. But the debate has to happen whether they have reached a level in terms of influence that they are not private platforms anymore.
  • Reply 39 of 46
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,746member
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    cgWerks said:
    crowley said:
    For any of that to have any credibility you're going to need to cite an example of someone with "expertise in their respective field" who was "silenced" for "spreading misinformation" and be able to prove reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually misinformation.

    I've never seen anyone do that.  They just moan that operators of a private company shouldn't be able to operate it privately.  Total freedom of speech for liars at the expense of freedom of property for those who try stop the lies, eh?
    Then you haven't been looking too hard. My gosh, the entire narrative within Covid-19 fiasco flip-flopped multiple times already, and people got silenced and worse for what is now considered nearly common knowledge. Just look up a few of the top signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration. Whether you ultimately agree with their positions or not, they are top people in their field.

    But, you asked for one, so I'll give you one I'm highly familiar with. In about July of 2020, Dr Fauci was on a virology podcast, discussing PCR testing. As part of the conversation, they noted how samples that showed positive into the mid and upper 30 cycles, were almost certainly not able to be cultured. In other words, false-positives. At the time, most of the labs were running over 40 cycles. I (and many others) who tried to get this information out (including top virologists), had our posts taken down or even accounts suspended (as did I).

    If you still think this is misinformation, I'm happy to debate that point with you. I've done so successfully online with a PhD who runs a testing lab, and won. I don't understand all the terminology and 100% of the process, but I'm completely solid on the principal involved and why it was problematic in this whole Covid crisis.
    Everyone I've debated with online about things like the effectiveness of masks and similar ends up pointing to articles from websites which have zero credibility, or pointing to the words of experts but with no links to the peer-reviewed studies which back their words up.  I just intrinsically assume that everyone is out to gain something for themselves (money, fame, etc) unless there's actual research to back them up.

    I'd love to see a truly rational debate where direct cause-and-effect are spelled out in clear terms with references to peer-reviewed studies as proof.  No linguistic tricks or persuasive language, no thought experiments which are unrelated to reality, no fake websites with agendas, just clear and rational arguments spelled out with hard evidence to back it up.  I've yet to see anything like that online.
    I am sure that you are talking about the anti-vaccine group in this post. Just curious to know whether you saw such details from pro-vaccine group?
    Neither.  I speak with friends in the medical community and get pointers to peer-reviewed medical research like the WHO database so I can form my own opinions independent of all the gut reactions dressed up with words that people get caught up in on social media.  If I find the language is too complex, I ask someone to translate it for me.
    Ok, Thanks for the clarification. This is where FB/Twitter banning one side of arguments (anti vaccine) and allowing only one side (pro vaccine) to say whatever they want to say becomes a problem. I get that they are private platforms so do not come under the laws related to free speech. But the debate has to happen whether they have reached a level in terms of influence that they are not private platforms anymore.
    The big problem for me is the lack of credible evidence (on either side).  At that point it just becomes who has the best story/linguistic ability.  Which is fine if you're clearly joking around or it's not a serious topic.  The problem is when people try to pass things off as true medical advice which others should act on.  But I guess it's been happening throughout human history, so I shouldn't expect different.  Things just get amplified much more with social media than they did with the local witch doctor.
    jony0muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 40 of 46
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,287member
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.
    Examples?
    Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.
    It would likely be quicker to type a single name than it would to type "too numerous to list".
    Go for it.
    The only person am really aware of is Robert Malone.  I'm not in your bubble.  if you can give a name, just one, I'd appreciate it.  As I said, if the number are too numerous to list then there's almost certainly a single name that is quicker to type than "Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal."  

    You wasted much more of your time than you needed.  Almost as if you don't actually have an answer and are just stalling for time.
    Anyone who dared question the efficacy of vaccines, the need for strict lockdowns, the need for masks in school, etc etc. 
Sign In or Register to comment.