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.
auxio said: 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.
Since there are two sides, you'll find evidence for either. The only way you won't is if we're in complete conspiracy-land, totally made up stuff. When you are on a jury trial, there will be expert witnesses giving evidence for both sides of the case (presumably, one correct and one wrong, though I suppose most such things are never 100% black and white).
The problem is that those debates you and I would like to see didn't happen. One side got promoted by the gov't, media, etc. as truth, and the other side got labeled misinformation at best, and censored or de-platformed at the other extreme. That is a HUGE red-flag that something is up.
And... if we wait long enough, the truth starts to come out. I've been following Alex Berenson's defamation lawsuit against Twitter (which he essentially won, as they settled and reinstated his account). But, the discovery process has produced some interesting information, such as the White House's involvement.
As for masks, it's pretty simple. They'll obvious have *some* impact for the aerosols or bigger droplets that actually go through the mask (as opposed to around the edges). Just wait until winter (assuming you're in a freezing climate), or get someone to take you into a walk-in freezer with your mask on, and all will quickly become obvious. The devil is in the details, as I've seen one study showing smaller aerosol particles (which would go through a cloth or medical mask, have several times the viral load as bigger ones.
But, you'll find studies on both sides, showing some amount of effectiveness, and then also little effectiveness. It is somewhere in there. The issue is what is effective? I suppose a window screen will will impact *some* of the water from a squirt gun. Or, grabbing a bucket on the Titanic would have slowed the sinking by a bit. If you're in an enclosed space w/o enough air movement an exchange, it is just a matter of time with two masked people, one with Covid. But, maybe it does prevent a transmission here or there under just the right circumstances.
crowley said: Bull. Plenty of those are still on Twitter.
Yeah, and some have been reinstated.
It wasn't a total, absolute block of everything. It was just harsh enough to put fear in to a lot of people who cared about their online presence. And... that was the point!
crowley said: Bull. Plenty of those are still on Twitter.
Yeah, and some have been reinstated.
It wasn't a total, absolute block of everything. It was just harsh enough to put fear in to a lot of people who cared about their online presence. And... that was the point!
The two other guys abjectly failed, can you give a single name?
crowley said: The two other guys abjectly failed, can you give a single name?
Sorry, I'm missing context here, I guess. Two other guys failed? You're wanting the name of someone cancelled/banned?
Alex Berenson (former NYT reporter) is a great example. Roughly a year ago, he was lifetime-banned from Twitter for the following tweet:
Note: that's not the actual tweet, but a quote I made of it after he got taken down to show others what he got banned for.
That was incredibly controversial a year ago, but now, not so much. (Those of us following the experts back then knew this information. Actually, a good while before this.)
Alex sued Twitter for defamation, which kicked off an interesting process of discovery. They ended up settling, and Alex is reinstated (ie. he won). But, what was discovered is that Twitter was actually protecting him up to a point, as he hasn't crossed the line of their ToS. There was a lot of pressure to take him down. Eventually, a group of people from Twitter were brought to the White House, and (by name) specifically requested his account be taken down. It seems that was when the Section 230 stuff was going on, and Twitter felt pressured enough, they complied.
Is that the kind of thing you're talking about? Thousands of people have had their accounts taken down, many of them even high-profile people like Alex. I've had my account temporarily banned a couple of times already, for a week or two at a time.
Comments
The problem is that those debates you and I would like to see didn't happen. One side got promoted by the gov't, media, etc. as truth, and the other side got labeled misinformation at best, and censored or de-platformed at the other extreme. That is a HUGE red-flag that something is up.
And... if we wait long enough, the truth starts to come out. I've been following Alex Berenson's defamation lawsuit against Twitter (which he essentially won, as they settled and reinstated his account). But, the discovery process has produced some interesting information, such as the White House's involvement.
As for masks, it's pretty simple. They'll obvious have *some* impact for the aerosols or bigger droplets that actually go through the mask (as opposed to around the edges). Just wait until winter (assuming you're in a freezing climate), or get someone to take you into a walk-in freezer with your mask on, and all will quickly become obvious. The devil is in the details, as I've seen one study showing smaller aerosol particles (which would go through a cloth or medical mask, have several times the viral load as bigger ones.
But, you'll find studies on both sides, showing some amount of effectiveness, and then also little effectiveness. It is somewhere in there. The issue is what is effective? I suppose a window screen will will impact *some* of the water from a squirt gun. Or, grabbing a bucket on the Titanic would have slowed the sinking by a bit. If you're in an enclosed space w/o enough air movement an exchange, it is just a matter of time with two masked people, one with Covid. But, maybe it does prevent a transmission here or there under just the right circumstances.
It wasn't a total, absolute block of everything. It was just harsh enough to put fear in to a lot of people who cared about their online presence. And... that was the point!
Alex Berenson (former NYT reporter) is a great example. Roughly a year ago, he was lifetime-banned from Twitter for the following tweet:
Note: that's not the actual tweet, but a quote I made of it after he got taken down to show others what he got banned for.
That was incredibly controversial a year ago, but now, not so much. (Those of us following the experts back then knew this information. Actually, a good while before this.)
Alex sued Twitter for defamation, which kicked off an interesting process of discovery. They ended up settling, and Alex is reinstated (ie. he won). But, what was discovered is that Twitter was actually protecting him up to a point, as he hasn't crossed the line of their ToS. There was a lot of pressure to take him down. Eventually, a group of people from Twitter were brought to the White House, and (by name) specifically requested his account be taken down. It seems that was when the Section 230 stuff was going on, and Twitter felt pressured enough, they complied.
Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
Thousands of people have had their accounts taken down, many of them even high-profile people like Alex. I've had my account temporarily banned a couple of times already, for a week or two at a time.