Twitter is no longer enforcing the Covid-19 misleading information policy(transparency.twitter.com)
transparency.twitter.com
Twitter is no longer enforcing the Covid-19 misleading information policy
https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/covid19.html
124 comments
I can second the annoyance with the CDC throughout most of the pandemic. I had to read WHO publications and individual studies to get an inkling of what might be going on with covid risk where it mattered; to me and the people I care about (since I could personally do nothing about the rest of the public). I am not a virologist or public health expert, but I can see when a study has reasonable error bars and sample sizes for the inferences they are making from it. I'll also take an average educated guess of many virologists over a single small study, but there was nothing close to consensus on covid among experts for several months. During that time it was clear that isolation was the only provable way to combat covid and contact-tracing was virtually the only conceivable way to isolate without shutting down literally everything. So what did CDC do? No contact tracing, but 6-foot distancing, extreme hand washing, etc.
I disagree slightly with your statement about the reasoning that hydroxychloroquine being effective was correct. The correct conclusion to draw from an authority with no-better-than-chance at being correct changing their recommendation is exactly the same no-better-than-chance at being correct. It wasn't quite that bad; hand washing is a general good practice and had a chance at being helpful given no other information. The health agencies issued recommendations with no error bars and wrote themselves into a corner where they couldn't update to more reliable information without continually contradicting themselves, so as a result I still see signs left in stores asking people to 6-foot distance (even though masks are optional).
I also realize the underlying problem is that people are terrible at reasoning under uncertainty and also very unfamiliar with trying to do so, and so won't take announcements with error bars in a very useful way. Presented with uncertainty most people default to their status quo as if having less than perfect information is the same as no information. So the CDC's battle was to try to influence public behavior in ways that were ultimately beneficial, while probably knowing they had a limited number of tries before people noticed the uncertainty and reverted to status quo. A very unenviable position.
Twitter censoring misinformation may have delayed the build-up to useless uncertainty, or it may have come too late to help much. I don't have evidence either way. One part of the status quo is buying quack medicine, so there was never any hope for preventing some of the population from doing that regardless of messaging or censorship.
I disagree slightly with your statement about the reasoning that hydroxychloroquine being effective was correct. The correct conclusion to draw from an authority with no-better-than-chance at being correct changing their recommendation is exactly the same no-better-than-chance at being correct. It wasn't quite that bad; hand washing is a general good practice and had a chance at being helpful given no other information. The health agencies issued recommendations with no error bars and wrote themselves into a corner where they couldn't update to more reliable information without continually contradicting themselves, so as a result I still see signs left in stores asking people to 6-foot distance (even though masks are optional).
I also realize the underlying problem is that people are terrible at reasoning under uncertainty and also very unfamiliar with trying to do so, and so won't take announcements with error bars in a very useful way. Presented with uncertainty most people default to their status quo as if having less than perfect information is the same as no information. So the CDC's battle was to try to influence public behavior in ways that were ultimately beneficial, while probably knowing they had a limited number of tries before people noticed the uncertainty and reverted to status quo. A very unenviable position.
Twitter censoring misinformation may have delayed the build-up to useless uncertainty, or it may have come too late to help much. I don't have evidence either way. One part of the status quo is buying quack medicine, so there was never any hope for preventing some of the population from doing that regardless of messaging or censorship.
Let's see how long this policy lasts if people spread COVID-19 misinformation that replaces Bill Gates as the Boogeyman with Elon Musk.
The guy is an intellectual lightweight making intellectual lightweight mistakes. Free speech isn't axiomatically important but only insofar as it increases your chances of survival, which is axiomatically important. That's a common mistake made by "muh freedoms" absolutists.
The guy is an intellectual lightweight making intellectual lightweight mistakes. Free speech isn't axiomatically important but only insofar as it increases your chances of survival, which is axiomatically important. That's a common mistake made by "muh freedoms" absolutists.
Is this the policy that originally said that telling people to wear a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth, and then saying wearing a mask provides no additional benefit was a mistruth.
Is this also the policy that said saying COVID vaccines increased the risk of mydiocarditis in young people was a mistruth, and yet its now known to be true?
Because if so, good riddance to a piece of junk. All it did was fuel conspiracy and discredit government advice. Shame on anyone who thought that silencing decent was the best way to handle it.
Is this also the policy that said saying COVID vaccines increased the risk of mydiocarditis in young people was a mistruth, and yet its now known to be true?
Because if so, good riddance to a piece of junk. All it did was fuel conspiracy and discredit government advice. Shame on anyone who thought that silencing decent was the best way to handle it.
> Is this the policy that originally said that telling people to wear a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth, and then saying wearing a mask provides no additional benefit was a mistruth.
It doesn't seem so. From https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid-19 , one of the examples of a tweet to remove is: “now that it’s summertime, you don’t need a mask anymore, so don’t wear your mask!”
I don't see a time where Twitter's policy said otherwise.
> Is this also the policy that said saying COVID vaccines increased the risk of mydiocarditis in young people was a mistruth, and yet its now known to be true?
As I understand the policy, not per se. There were three factors:
1. it must be an assertion of fact (not an opinion), expressed definitively, and intended to influence others’ behavior.
2. Is the claim demonstrably false or misleading?
3. Would belief in this information, as presented, lead to harm?
Someone writing that there's a very rare (as in 0.0022% chance) of mydiocarditis in young people, then that appears to be within policy. If someone says young people shouldn't get the vaccine because of the increased chance of mydiocarditis, then that that likely falls under #1.
My "0.0022% chance" comes from Myocarditis or Pericarditis Following the COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents: A Systematic Review, M Li, X Wang, J Feng, Z Feng, W Li, B Ya - Vaccines, 2022
] Conclusions: Our study showed that myocarditis/pericarditis occurred after vaccination with the BNT162b2 or Comirnaty vaccine, especially after the second vaccination in male adolescents, but the incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis after vaccination with the above vaccines was very rare (0.0022%). Therefore, it is recommended that adolescents should be vaccinated with the COVID-19 universal vaccine as soon as possible and closely monitored for subsequent adverse reactions, which can be treated promptly.
also, quoting Evaluating the relationship between myocarditis and mRNA vaccination, Charlotte Switzer & Mark Loeb (2022) - Expert Review of Vaccines, 21:1, 83-89,
] Myocarditis may be associated with vaccination, through several biological mechanisms. Studies have shown that live viral vaccinations can act as a trigger for hypersensitivity inflammatory reactions, but further work is required to examine how the mRNA formulation may induce these autoimmune responses. Given that the risk of these adverse events is low, and the benefit of protection against disease is so great, the receipt of mRNA vaccines is recommended. ...
] Consistently, all patients hospitalized with mRNA-associated myocarditis have been discharged in stable condition and responded well to clinical management, resolving the episode [15–27].
> All it did was fuel conspiracy and discredit government advice.
Some of the other things covered on the policy were:
“5G causes coronavirus — go destroy the cell towers in your neighborhood!".
"Tweets offering the sale or facilitation of non-prescription treatments/cures for COVID-19, or those which advertise cures or treatments for COVID-19 that require a prescription or physician consultation."
"Specific and unverified claims made by people impersonating a government or health official or organization such as a parody account of official public health advisors claiming that hydroxychloroquine will prevent COVID-19."
"Claims that specific groups or nationalities are never susceptible to COVID-19, such as “people with dark skin are immune to COVID-19 due to melanin production” or are more susceptible, such as “avoid businesses owned by Chinese people as they are more likely to have COVID-19.”"
“Coronavirus is vulnerable to UV radiation - walking outside in bright sunlight will prevent COVID-19.”
“drinking bleach and ingesting colloidal silver will cure COVID-19.”
“COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven’t seen any cases of children being sick.”
“If you can hold your breath for 10 seconds, you don’t have coronavirus.”
It doesn't seem so. From https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid-19 , one of the examples of a tweet to remove is: “now that it’s summertime, you don’t need a mask anymore, so don’t wear your mask!”
I don't see a time where Twitter's policy said otherwise.
> Is this also the policy that said saying COVID vaccines increased the risk of mydiocarditis in young people was a mistruth, and yet its now known to be true?
As I understand the policy, not per se. There were three factors:
1. it must be an assertion of fact (not an opinion), expressed definitively, and intended to influence others’ behavior.
2. Is the claim demonstrably false or misleading?
3. Would belief in this information, as presented, lead to harm?
Someone writing that there's a very rare (as in 0.0022% chance) of mydiocarditis in young people, then that appears to be within policy. If someone says young people shouldn't get the vaccine because of the increased chance of mydiocarditis, then that that likely falls under #1.
My "0.0022% chance" comes from Myocarditis or Pericarditis Following the COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents: A Systematic Review, M Li, X Wang, J Feng, Z Feng, W Li, B Ya - Vaccines, 2022
] Conclusions: Our study showed that myocarditis/pericarditis occurred after vaccination with the BNT162b2 or Comirnaty vaccine, especially after the second vaccination in male adolescents, but the incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis after vaccination with the above vaccines was very rare (0.0022%). Therefore, it is recommended that adolescents should be vaccinated with the COVID-19 universal vaccine as soon as possible and closely monitored for subsequent adverse reactions, which can be treated promptly.
also, quoting Evaluating the relationship between myocarditis and mRNA vaccination, Charlotte Switzer & Mark Loeb (2022) - Expert Review of Vaccines, 21:1, 83-89,
] Myocarditis may be associated with vaccination, through several biological mechanisms. Studies have shown that live viral vaccinations can act as a trigger for hypersensitivity inflammatory reactions, but further work is required to examine how the mRNA formulation may induce these autoimmune responses. Given that the risk of these adverse events is low, and the benefit of protection against disease is so great, the receipt of mRNA vaccines is recommended. ...
] Consistently, all patients hospitalized with mRNA-associated myocarditis have been discharged in stable condition and responded well to clinical management, resolving the episode [15–27].
> All it did was fuel conspiracy and discredit government advice.
Some of the other things covered on the policy were:
“5G causes coronavirus — go destroy the cell towers in your neighborhood!".
"Tweets offering the sale or facilitation of non-prescription treatments/cures for COVID-19, or those which advertise cures or treatments for COVID-19 that require a prescription or physician consultation."
"Specific and unverified claims made by people impersonating a government or health official or organization such as a parody account of official public health advisors claiming that hydroxychloroquine will prevent COVID-19."
"Claims that specific groups or nationalities are never susceptible to COVID-19, such as “people with dark skin are immune to COVID-19 due to melanin production” or are more susceptible, such as “avoid businesses owned by Chinese people as they are more likely to have COVID-19.”"
“Coronavirus is vulnerable to UV radiation - walking outside in bright sunlight will prevent COVID-19.”
“drinking bleach and ingesting colloidal silver will cure COVID-19.”
“COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven’t seen any cases of children being sick.”
“If you can hold your breath for 10 seconds, you don’t have coronavirus.”
Just because certain false statements were banned under the policy doesn’t mean true statements were not also banned. Twitter’s own examples are (obviously) self serving.
Abstractly, you are correct.
But as a matter of policy effectiveness, it would be useful to have examples of true statements which were banned, to see how effective the policy was, and see the types of misclassifications.
Did Twitter "originally [say] that telling people to wear a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth"?
If so, when did it change, and why?
If not, then the answer to Khaine's question is "no".
Aren't all corporate policies self-serving?
But as a matter of policy effectiveness, it would be useful to have examples of true statements which were banned, to see how effective the policy was, and see the types of misclassifications.
Did Twitter "originally [say] that telling people to wear a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth"?
If so, when did it change, and why?
If not, then the answer to Khaine's question is "no".
Aren't all corporate policies self-serving?
Your reasoning is kind of like saying if Saudi really killed Khashoggi why didn’t they update their laws first to make dissident journalists executable without trial? You’re looking for evidence of wrongdoing in places where it’s obviously going to be absent. Changes in what information Twitter considers true does not require a public facing policy change.
Are you trying to heat up this already contentious topic by name-dropping a gruesome premeditated murder? Would no other example work?
I'm not asking about a change in invisible internal policies that didn't affect Twitter users.
I'm asking about examples fitting Khaine's claim that Twitter's policy was that "to wear a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth".
That's an external observable. And it can change over time.
I'm not asking about a change in invisible internal policies that didn't affect Twitter users.
I'm asking about examples fitting Khaine's claim that Twitter's policy was that "to wear a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth".
That's an external observable. And it can change over time.
> But as a matter of policy effectiveness, it would be useful to have examples of true statements which were banned, to see how effective the policy was, and see the types of misclassifications.
Show me the list of statements that twitter bans, with change history, and I can get you this info.
Until then, we are talking about an opaque censorship team that was coordinating with the government to (unlawfully) create mechanisms for the government to censor speech in the name of public health. There are plenty of examples of false statements being made by everyone from Biden on down to heads of CDC, mostly about vaccine effectiveness, but also about aspects of the virus itself. Claims that if you get the vaccine, you wont get the virus, then claims that if you get the vaccine, you might get the virus, but you are less likely to spread it, etc.
But as Twitter never published its official list of banable statements, you are asking for evidence that doesn't exist. If someone were to say "Twitter banned users for making statement X", you can respond with "prove to me that's why they were banned", and again Twitter has kept this information secret.
The idea of government agencies secretly censoring the public via twitter should be very concerning, and it certainly isn't justified by appealing to the needs of public health. Public health never requires censorship - if you think it does, you are doing public health the wrong way. Public health should work by earning people's trust and then publishing official recommendations that have a track record of accuracy and effectiveness, and thus are trusted by the public. Then, you don't need to censor people. Blaming the public for not trusting government pronouncements is exactly what you want to avoid, as now you are engaging in authoritarian behavior. The government exists to serve and listen to the public, not the other way around.
Show me the list of statements that twitter bans, with change history, and I can get you this info.
Until then, we are talking about an opaque censorship team that was coordinating with the government to (unlawfully) create mechanisms for the government to censor speech in the name of public health. There are plenty of examples of false statements being made by everyone from Biden on down to heads of CDC, mostly about vaccine effectiveness, but also about aspects of the virus itself. Claims that if you get the vaccine, you wont get the virus, then claims that if you get the vaccine, you might get the virus, but you are less likely to spread it, etc.
But as Twitter never published its official list of banable statements, you are asking for evidence that doesn't exist. If someone were to say "Twitter banned users for making statement X", you can respond with "prove to me that's why they were banned", and again Twitter has kept this information secret.
The idea of government agencies secretly censoring the public via twitter should be very concerning, and it certainly isn't justified by appealing to the needs of public health. Public health never requires censorship - if you think it does, you are doing public health the wrong way. Public health should work by earning people's trust and then publishing official recommendations that have a track record of accuracy and effectiveness, and thus are trusted by the public. Then, you don't need to censor people. Blaming the public for not trusting government pronouncements is exactly what you want to avoid, as now you are engaging in authoritarian behavior. The government exists to serve and listen to the public, not the other way around.
> Show me the list of statements that twitter bans, with change history, and I can get you this info.
I agree that evidence is important. Khaine made a specific claim. I don't believe it's supported. I want to see the evidence too. Otherwise I don't believe the claim is correct.
> to (unlawfully) create mechanisms for the government to censor speech in the name of public health.
What do you have against the First Amendment's right of free association?
There is nothing inherently illegal about a company applying a moderation policy. There is nothing inherently illegal about a company voluntarily coordinating with the government.
The Comics Code of The Comics Code Authority was not unconstitutional.
> you are asking for evidence that doesn't exist.
Quite the opposite. Khaine says there is evidence that Twitter used to ban statements saying "wear[ing] a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth."
I want evidence that that specific event existed.
> The idea of government agencies secretly censoring the public
While the idea of a company voluntarily exercising its right of free association, with a public description of the policy guidelines, is much less concerning.
You come to a programming conference I'm organizing and start presenting public health BS and I will ask you to stop speaking, under threat of expelling you from the conference. That is my Constitutional right.
Just because the BS topic happens to be public health (vs. another sorts of expellable BS) doesn't give the BS presenter special privileges.
I agree that evidence is important. Khaine made a specific claim. I don't believe it's supported. I want to see the evidence too. Otherwise I don't believe the claim is correct.
> to (unlawfully) create mechanisms for the government to censor speech in the name of public health.
What do you have against the First Amendment's right of free association?
There is nothing inherently illegal about a company applying a moderation policy. There is nothing inherently illegal about a company voluntarily coordinating with the government.
The Comics Code of The Comics Code Authority was not unconstitutional.
> you are asking for evidence that doesn't exist.
Quite the opposite. Khaine says there is evidence that Twitter used to ban statements saying "wear[ing] a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth."
I want evidence that that specific event existed.
> The idea of government agencies secretly censoring the public
While the idea of a company voluntarily exercising its right of free association, with a public description of the policy guidelines, is much less concerning.
You come to a programming conference I'm organizing and start presenting public health BS and I will ask you to stop speaking, under threat of expelling you from the conference. That is my Constitutional right.
Just because the BS topic happens to be public health (vs. another sorts of expellable BS) doesn't give the BS presenter special privileges.
On January 23, when the virus was starting to become important to Americans, The New York Times[1] asked the question, “do masks block Coronavirus?” No conclusive answer was offered, and it was just stressed that washing hands and general hygiene would be sufficient to block the virus. A similar perspective was also offered on January 24 by The Seattle Times[2] in saying, “public health officials say there’s no need to wear face masks in the United States.” Americans were told that masks do not help, and the number of cases in the U.S. was too few to justify the use of masks. In January, Americans understood that there was no need to use masks.
This continued in February when the numbers in the U.S. were just starting to go up, and COVID-19 was no longer just a problem in Asia and Europe. Using the words of Dr. Fauci, The US News and World Report[3] stated on February 17: “skip the masks unless you are contagious.”
Twitter's policy was not in place when the pandemic started, but after masks were mandated it came into effect. You would be blocked on twitter for repeating what was dogma only months before, that masks were not effective.
In the short history of the pandemic, Americans were never clearly told what Science[4] reported on March 28: That the benefit of the mask “comes not from shielding the mouths of the healthy but from covering the mouths of people already infected.” The unambiguous scientific message of communal responsibility never comes front and center in the media agenda.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/health/coronavirus-surgic...
[2]https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/coronavirus-spurs-...
[3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-di...
[4] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/would-everyone-weari...
This continued in February when the numbers in the U.S. were just starting to go up, and COVID-19 was no longer just a problem in Asia and Europe. Using the words of Dr. Fauci, The US News and World Report[3] stated on February 17: “skip the masks unless you are contagious.”
Twitter's policy was not in place when the pandemic started, but after masks were mandated it came into effect. You would be blocked on twitter for repeating what was dogma only months before, that masks were not effective.
In the short history of the pandemic, Americans were never clearly told what Science[4] reported on March 28: That the benefit of the mask “comes not from shielding the mouths of the healthy but from covering the mouths of people already infected.” The unambiguous scientific message of communal responsibility never comes front and center in the media agenda.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/health/coronavirus-surgic...
[2]https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/coronavirus-spurs-...
[3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-di...
[4] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/would-everyone-weari...
> Twitter's policy was not in place when the pandemic started,
Which is exactly my point.
This is NOT "the policy that originally said that telling people to wear a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth" because Twitter never did that.
You are free to conjecture hypotheticals, but it would be just that - conjecture.
Which is exactly my point.
This is NOT "the policy that originally said that telling people to wear a mask to protect yourself from COVID was a mistruth" because Twitter never did that.
You are free to conjecture hypotheticals, but it would be just that - conjecture.
It’s probably better to give up on covid “misinformation”. All sorts of official groups like the WHO and CDC themselves have been spreading it so it’s almost impossible to come to a consensus on what is and isn’t true.
Some example statements that are controversial would include:
- Covid is not airborne - cloth masks are ineffective - covid originated in a lab in wuhan - omicron is mild
How do you deal with statements like that without pissing off a government group? It’s better to ignore it and some associated conspiracy stuff.
Some example statements that are controversial would include:
- Covid is not airborne - cloth masks are ineffective - covid originated in a lab in wuhan - omicron is mild
How do you deal with statements like that without pissing off a government group? It’s better to ignore it and some associated conspiracy stuff.
Science had a better idea of what the virus does after a while, and so the guidance was changed. That doesn't make the initial guidance a lie.
I won't defend the WHO (because they clearly did spread some misinformation at times), but the scientific community at large only changed its messaging because their information got better, not because they got "found out" as liars.
I won't defend the WHO (because they clearly did spread some misinformation at times), but the scientific community at large only changed its messaging because their information got better, not because they got "found out" as liars.
"The science" (I really hate that phrasing) doesn't change. Conclusive results require reproducibility. If "the science" changes then the initial findings were not reproducible and thus non conclusive and not "the science". Reproducibility points to a particular conclusion so following the trend shouldnt result in a complete 180 turnaround in provided information (the vaccines prevent the spread -> the vaccines don't prevent the spread). If they didn't have conclusive evidence of their statement they should just say " I don't know, but we are working to find that out". Premature assertions of correctness by the CDC, WHO, and other public health officials based on (now known) incorrect conclusions has done untold damage to their credibility making the public hesitant to trust them regarding any health guidance and in the worst case raising suspicion of malice from those most hurt by their guidance.
You're missing the point of the entire field of "Public Health." It's not to communicate the minutia of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. That's what academics are for. Public health is more like marketing, but with the goal to reduce harm rather than make profit. And that's OK, and a good thing, and to lambast them for trying to convey a simple, straight-forward message is really just not understanding what the role of public health is.
Great marketing, I can't direct people to WHO guidelines regarding things anymore to a fairly large chunk of population (like I could reliably 5-10yrs ago) without getting laughed at.
Great success, everybody's fired.
Great success, everybody's fired.
Even worse is "Trust the science", which means "Trust us". It's anti-science.
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned" -Richard Feynman
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned" -Richard Feynman
The vaccine originally went a long ways towards preventing the spread. The virus mutated enough that the vaccine now pretty much only means reduced severity of infection.
The situation changed, science recognizes this. This is not a case of the original results not being reproduceable!
The situation changed, science recognizes this. This is not a case of the original results not being reproduceable!
Well said. Saying Covid is not airborne 2 weeks after discovery, and calling it science, is almost the complete opposite of science. There is no way you could prove reproducibly 2 weeks after discovery that a new respiratory illness is not airborne.
So it’s all politics. Yet they call it science.
As you said, this has caused immense trust loss institutions worldwide. For good reason. It’s a tragedy.
So it’s all politics. Yet they call it science.
As you said, this has caused immense trust loss institutions worldwide. For good reason. It’s a tragedy.
Science is not a gospel and it absolutely does change. In fact that's its main differentiating trait. Your theory that science produces certainty is infantile.
One glaring example would be where CDC Director Rochelle Wolensky said: "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real-world data."[1]. That was never true. The science didn't change, this was a false statement when it was made. And it was amplified by everybody from the President of the United States[2] on down to people posting here.
These sorts of lies by people claiming to "trust the science" were then used to silence & censor people who challenged statements like this, and who challenged the idea that there was no potential long term harm despite all of the evidence showing young males in particular were more likely to develop myocarditis from the vaccine than from Covid.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn...
These sorts of lies by people claiming to "trust the science" were then used to silence & censor people who challenged statements like this, and who challenged the idea that there was no potential long term harm despite all of the evidence showing young males in particular were more likely to develop myocarditis from the vaccine than from Covid.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn...
And the so called conspiracy theorists can now say they were right.
It’s super concerning that you’ve basically given legitimate ammo to the most paranoid of society. This shouldn’t be the case. But now it’s going to be twice as hard to convince the fringes of anything coming from authority of anything.
It’s super concerning that you’ve basically given legitimate ammo to the most paranoid of society. This shouldn’t be the case. But now it’s going to be twice as hard to convince the fringes of anything coming from authority of anything.
"Science" does not have any ideas about anything. Science is a tool that humans use to learn about the world; it is the human beings who have ideas about things. And, because human beings are fallible, it's generally advisable not to give a small group of them absolute unnacountable power over the speech of everyone else. "If men were angels" and all that
I strongly disagree.
Most of these guidance were not set on scientific grounds to begin with, but based on political grounds. The science was always in the other direction for an unbiased reviewer.
It is good that science ultimately won out, but I think it will be a long time before institutional credibility is restored.
It is good that science ultimately won out, but I think it will be a long time before institutional credibility is restored.
Guidance is normative, not descriptive. Science itself cannot tell anyone what to do. No amount of "science" can tell you how to prioritize your messaging, mask production/distribution, and hospital usage.
Why is it inherently bad that the early pandemic guidance had a political valence? Obviously, no one likes to be misled, but the CDC and WHO were making decisions that would affect billions of people in the absence of any US leadership.
Why is it inherently bad that the early pandemic guidance had a political valence? Obviously, no one likes to be misled, but the CDC and WHO were making decisions that would affect billions of people in the absence of any US leadership.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is science and public policy. The two are different.
Many choices are political and should be. For example, The tradeoff of how many deaths is it worth to keep open schools has no scientific answer.
The problem is when lies are used to misrepresent the science to achieve a desirable policy outcome.
The ultimate reason not to lie is that it undermines social trust and democracy.
Many choices are political and should be. For example, The tradeoff of how many deaths is it worth to keep open schools has no scientific answer.
The problem is when lies are used to misrepresent the science to achieve a desirable policy outcome.
The ultimate reason not to lie is that it undermines social trust and democracy.
What was political? Convince me that people weren't doing the best they could with the information they had.
Refusal to accept prior infection immunity. All the high quality data suggested it was good as or nearly as good as vaccines. This also matched the experience with similar viruses, yet policy makers claimed it was not "based on the science"
Infection immunity is as good as or better than vaccine immunity *against that variant*. Unfortunately, there is variant after variant after variant. The vaccine fares better than infection against new variants but at this point neither works well.
There are at least three parts to this. One is the science. The science should have initially been saying "We don't know", and then "We think X, because Y, with Z level of certainty", with Z getting more and more certain as time went on.
Second is the public health aspects of this. They had to say "Do U, V, and W" before the science was clear that those were the correct things to do. (Why "had to"? Because if they said "We can't tell you what to do", first there would have been panic, and second they would have missed a chance to get ahead of it if they guessed right. So they went with their best guess, which is not an unreasonable thing to do.)
But the third thing is politics and reputation. They went with their best guess, but they didn't admit that it was a guess. They wanted everyone to do it, and so they talked like they were certain, even though they didn't have the data to be certain. When some of their guesses were wrong, they took a reputational hit, because they had sounded like they were certain. Then, compounding the problem, even after the evidence started to come in they stuck to their original advice to try to avoid taking the damage to their reputation, and just wound up making themselves look like buffoons. They damaged the reputation of public health for decades by how they handled this.
Second is the public health aspects of this. They had to say "Do U, V, and W" before the science was clear that those were the correct things to do. (Why "had to"? Because if they said "We can't tell you what to do", first there would have been panic, and second they would have missed a chance to get ahead of it if they guessed right. So they went with their best guess, which is not an unreasonable thing to do.)
But the third thing is politics and reputation. They went with their best guess, but they didn't admit that it was a guess. They wanted everyone to do it, and so they talked like they were certain, even though they didn't have the data to be certain. When some of their guesses were wrong, they took a reputational hit, because they had sounded like they were certain. Then, compounding the problem, even after the evidence started to come in they stuck to their original advice to try to avoid taking the damage to their reputation, and just wound up making themselves look like buffoons. They damaged the reputation of public health for decades by how they handled this.
they lied because they thought there would be a mask shortage, and medical workers needed all the masks they could get. So they told people they dont need masks.
Except they didn’t actually provide decent masks to hospital workers either so they just lied because that’s what politicians do. Back to the original topic though how do you deal with official lies like this when you are big tech? It’s a real murky issue
Whether or not you believe it was justified, it still qualifies as misinformation.
In most cases you put the masks on the sick. The closest disease we have for comparison is the original SARS and we stopped it because symptoms showed (and could be tested in bulk by thermal cameras) before people were infectious.
Covid has turned into a pandemic because it has the unexpected property of most infection being before symptoms show.
Covid has turned into a pandemic because it has the unexpected property of most infection being before symptoms show.
That's a bold opinion, honestly. It seems to me that much of the initial guidance ("masks don't work") was an intentional lie to prevent mask shortages. Do you have evidence otherwise?
I'm not clicking your rickroll.
It's not a rickroll, unless it changed. Edit: I mean it's not a rickroll now, you can click on it.
That’s all well and good for the scientific community, but the petty bureaucrats at Twitter, the White House, DHS, etc. who were policing “misinformation” on social media are another thing entirely.
>>Science had a better idea of what the virus does after a while, and so the guidance was changed. That doesn't make the initial guidance a lie.
No one has a monopoly on scientific thinking. The people whose tweets were "fact-checked" or removed, and who sometimes even had their accounts banned, could say exactly the same thing about those statements they made that ended up being proven wrong.
We shouldn't apply a hyper-critical lens to the statements of every one, except those deemed scientific experts by the established power structure.
No one has a monopoly on scientific thinking. The people whose tweets were "fact-checked" or removed, and who sometimes even had their accounts banned, could say exactly the same thing about those statements they made that ended up being proven wrong.
We shouldn't apply a hyper-critical lens to the statements of every one, except those deemed scientific experts by the established power structure.
One of the issues with this is not everyone is able to ignore conspiracy stuff, they take misinformation for information, and you get something like "masks don't work". Sort of like saying Fox News is harmless because we recognize it's news entertainment rather than news; there are many who believe it (or other sources) as news.
> Covid is not airborne
Which public health authority objects to this statement?
Which public health authority objects to this statement?
The WHO has a mixed record here. At first they said:
> FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne.
https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898
Now they say it is:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7
> FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne.
https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898
Now they say it is:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7
Wuhan Covid was technically airborne but did not have meaningful airborne spread because it needed a fairly high dose to infect.
Once again, it's not that the scientists got it wrong, it's that the disease changed!
Once again, it's not that the scientists got it wrong, it's that the disease changed!
So you're claiming that airborne transmission of early variants was possible but rare? Even if true, that's not what the WHO said.
[deleted]
The CDC disagreed up until May of last year.
The WHO disagreed until December 2021.
There is a significant overlap between all these parties of when airborne transmission was misinformation.
The WHO disagreed until December 2021.
There is a significant overlap between all these parties of when airborne transmission was misinformation.
I think you got tripped up by the double negative. To clarify your response you might repeat your assumptions in whole and don’t rely on the context of what you’re replying to. Restate it all in your own message and words.
Thank you for sharing.
Thank you for sharing.
I think you have their position backwards. They originally agreed and said "Covid is not airborne", now they disagree. See the links in my other comment.
Correct, I accidentally reversed it. The point of my comment was that there was a period where the WHO said one thing and the CDC said another and they were mutually exclusive. These were the two most prominent health authorities, and there were many more that changed their stances on different days.
What is the single source of truth here? People were banned and deplatformed from social media for "spreading misinformation about COVID".
What is the single source of truth here? People were banned and deplatformed from social media for "spreading misinformation about COVID".
Quite early on there were indications it was airborne. I distinctly remember a group of researchers making a stink that the CDC wasn’t changing their position in it.
Honestly, I’m a bit amazed that isn’t something we can easily test. I’m no biologist but couldn’t we just take people sick with COVID in a room and have them breathe/talk/whatever with the equivalent of Petri dishes at differing distances?
Honestly, I’m a bit amazed that isn’t something we can easily test. I’m no biologist but couldn’t we just take people sick with COVID in a room and have them breathe/talk/whatever with the equivalent of Petri dishes at differing distances?
I think you need to understand that emerging novel viruses take time to understand. We still understand relatively little about covid, and to be upset with Twitter for doing it’s best at a time where emerging information is being blasted around the globe, is misplaced at best. Recommendations evolve as the virus itself does, and as organizations respond to emerging threats.
Why keep the policy then? Like why "no longer enforce" the policy when you can just _remove_ the policy.
Like at least with drugs ("decriminalization") its because "no longer enforcing" the policy means people immediately won't be arrested/etc while repealing the law can take a long time. Presumably twitter has the authority to remove their own policies at will. (unless of course there's nobody still there that knows how to do that ...)
Like at least with drugs ("decriminalization") its because "no longer enforcing" the policy means people immediately won't be arrested/etc while repealing the law can take a long time. Presumably twitter has the authority to remove their own policies at will. (unless of course there's nobody still there that knows how to do that ...)
I'm honestly still shocked Twitter didn't go down for good a couple weekends ago. There was so much hype it was going to crash and burn, I feel a bit foolish for believing it.
None of the actual engineers involved in Twitter said it would crash and burn immediately. Nor have other SREs. The belief in an imminent complete collapse was mostly amongst non specialists.
But SREs including former Twitter employees have said severe outages will become increasingly likely as the weeks go by, and that in the meantime we’d see an increasing number of unresolved glitches. So far that second part is proving quite true.
But SREs including former Twitter employees have said severe outages will become increasingly likely as the weeks go by, and that in the meantime we’d see an increasing number of unresolved glitches. So far that second part is proving quite true.
[deleted]
Amnesty for previously banned harassers, unbanning of Trump, and now this all seem like a way to stir even more controversy and ideological keyboard-warrioring on Twitter. Short term it is going to drive "engagement" and produce a few charts with lines going up. Combined with decimation of anti-spam and anti-bot teams, Twitter is going to boast record numbers of posts.
The only people left at twitter seems to be H1B1 visa holders or diehard Musk fans - actually amazing to see how it plays out on a weekly basis and how Elon is making the most stupid decisions possible.
Money talks and advertisers don't want to have Parler/Social Truth unless they are into gold coins, MRE's or pillows.
Money talks and advertisers don't want to have Parler/Social Truth unless they are into gold coins, MRE's or pillows.
If they only removed a few hundred to a few thousand Tweets per month, it seems like it must not have been a particularly stringent policy. Surely that's a very small portion of the number of misleading tweets about covid.
Maybe they only policed content from popular twitterers? It probably makes sense to focus on the most influential and mainstream figures.
These policies did more harm then good. It just made more people distrust the government and create more aggression around the topic of COVID.
Good. They were censoring people like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya who were putting out valid scientific viewpoints (not anti vaxxer stuff) while putting out stuff like the nonsensical CDC early press release that you didn't need to wear a mask.
So, a win for the free flow of scientific information, even if some idiots get to say things that aren't true also.
So, a win for the free flow of scientific information, even if some idiots get to say things that aren't true also.
He's part of the Great Barrington Declaration. That makes him a quack in my book.
Every person on there is a credentialed health professional as is Dr Bhattacharya I'm happy to have access to their opinions and for them to have the right to communicate.
Sorry if you feel like your, (assumed) lay opinion, supersedes theirs. Even if you are a health professional, you have no monopoly on the right to express opinions.
Wanting to silence other professionals in your field is a quack / scammer viewpoint in and of itself.
Sorry if you feel like your, (assumed) lay opinion, supersedes theirs. Even if you are a health professional, you have no monopoly on the right to express opinions.
Wanting to silence other professionals in your field is a quack / scammer viewpoint in and of itself.
Censorship is a strong indicator of an unpopular idea that is likely to be objectively true.
This is not political; it is Bayes’ theorem.
This is not political; it is Bayes’ theorem.
If there were no major disinformation campaigns this would generally be the case. However, these days it will lead you to believe in all disinformation campaigns.
Circular logic: this is exactly the problem at hand. But we can go further:
Disinformation campaigns are generally self-serving, so there is another conditional distribution on profit, or perhaps more measurably, resource expenditure.
So if you see somebody spending money to censor a belief that profits nobody, and promote a belief that profits themselves, it warrants heavy suspicion.
Disinformation campaigns are generally self-serving, so there is another conditional distribution on profit, or perhaps more measurably, resource expenditure.
So if you see somebody spending money to censor a belief that profits nobody, and promote a belief that profits themselves, it warrants heavy suspicion.
Now, that Twitter ended 'Covid misinformation' policies, let's re-review the Federal™ own misinformation:
1. 15 days to slow the spread
2. Masks work
3. Lockdowns work
4. Natural immunity is a myth
5. mRNA shots are vaccines, not inoculants
6. Covid shots stop transmission
7. '100% safe & effective'
1. 15 days to slow the spread
2. Masks work
3. Lockdowns work
4. Natural immunity is a myth
5. mRNA shots are vaccines, not inoculants
6. Covid shots stop transmission
7. '100% safe & effective'
Great news. I think many peoples lives were disrupted because of the dogmatism on this topic. We should always be ready to trash our viewpoints when presented with new facts. It’s also our responsibility to verify facts we’re presented. Most people using the internet are not children and should not be coddled in this regard.
[deleted]
Good, now do away with other forms of censorship.
You mean spam blocking? That is literally censorship.
I don't consent to receiving spam, so I don't mind if it's censored. I also self-censor my timeline aggressively by silencing, unfollowing and blocking accounts I don't like.
I only dislike censorship when they don't ask me first.
I only dislike censorship when they don't ask me first.
In the government context, this problem is very aptly dealt with by distinguishing “content neutrality” from “viewpoint neutrality”. That’s why the government can punish spam emailers without violating the first amendment.
Twitter is not the government.
What a low effort and low thought reply. No one said it is. I’m saying there’s a principled way to have free speech and still take down spam.
I'm sorry, please clarify. What does the 'government aspect' have to do with 'twitter removing other forms of censorship'? What is 'content neutrality' and how is it different from 'viewpoint neutrality'? How does pointing out that 'censoring' in regards to removing objectionable content by a corporation relate to the first amendment at all, and what does being 'principled' have to do with it?
Maybe this is more productive: What point were you trying to make with your spam comment? And how isn’t it addressed by twitter abiding by viewpoint neutrality but not content neutrality?
Censorship = you can't say X at all
Spam Blocking = you can't say X more than Y (>> 1) times
While technically censorship, there is a big difference, I think. Obviously in practice spam blocking could maliciously or accidentally be used for censorship.
Spam Blocking = you can't say X more than Y (>> 1) times
While technically censorship, there is a big difference, I think. Obviously in practice spam blocking could maliciously or accidentally be used for censorship.
When Y==1 (such as an email spam blocker) then you proved their point.
Why would Y==1 for email spam? In spam, the same message is sent many times. Entropy to try to make spam messages different is generally merely meant to. circumvent spam blockers.
Spam is not illegal. Blocking non-illegal speech is censorship. End of story. There is no argument around this. Any conditions you place on it are arbitrary and are just you saying certain things are acceptable and others are not -- which is the definition of censorship.
Genuinely trying to understand your beliefs here. When you say "Any conditions you place on it are arbitrary" does that also apply to the laws around speech themselves? For example if spam was made illegal, would it then (according to you) not be censorship to block spam?
My belief is that illegal speech is also still a form of censorship, just one that we are OK with. And that spam is more like a denial of service attack. Blocking spam is not about blocking the expression of an idea, but making sure that a communication channel is not abused as to make the channel ineffective.
My belief is that illegal speech is also still a form of censorship, just one that we are OK with. And that spam is more like a denial of service attack. Blocking spam is not about blocking the expression of an idea, but making sure that a communication channel is not abused as to make the channel ineffective.
I am making a point that people who decry 'free speech / no censorship' have not thought it through to its logical conclusion. By telling a private entity such as twitter to 'remove all forms of censorship' then you are asking them to open the floodgates to every form of non-illegal speech. (I note illegal for obvious reasons because you have no discretion on removing illegal speech such as CSAM, you are obligated to do it).
'Remove all censorship' means not just 'free speech I want other people to have to deal with regardless of context' but also 'free speech that annoys the fuck out of me regardless of context', which very much includes spam.
By 'any conditions you place on it are arbitrary' I am referring specifically to 'if y is greater than x then spam else not spam'. That is arbitrary; you made that up. There is no 'if repeated more than once' appended to the end of "to suppress or delete as objectionable" in merriam webster under 'censor'. If you make up a rule to suite your convenience it is arbitrary.
'Remove all censorship' means not just 'free speech I want other people to have to deal with regardless of context' but also 'free speech that annoys the fuck out of me regardless of context', which very much includes spam.
By 'any conditions you place on it are arbitrary' I am referring specifically to 'if y is greater than x then spam else not spam'. That is arbitrary; you made that up. There is no 'if repeated more than once' appended to the end of "to suppress or delete as objectionable" in merriam webster under 'censor'. If you make up a rule to suite your convenience it is arbitrary.
Got it. I agree my proposed rule is arbitrary. I also think twitter must have some form of spam prevention-- any kind of API rate limit would be by your definition be censorship also. I think you might be assuming I think twitter could or should strive to be censorship free, I don't think this is desirable or possible.
> I think you might be assuming I think twitter could or should strive to be censorship free, I don't think this is desirable or possible.
Read the first sentence again of my last post. I am responding to a sentiment, not to you individually.
Read the first sentence again of my last post. I am responding to a sentiment, not to you individually.
[deleted]
phantomathkg(7)
egberts1(5)
A lot of people seem to be taking a very naive perspective, thinking that censoring something means fewer people will believe it. In the case of COVID-19 misinformation in particular, I believe this is wrong.
At the start of the pandemic, all the major public health organizations told blatant lies about key facts: airborne transmission, surface transmission, whether it was present in US at all, the secondary attack rate, the effectiveness of masks, the infection-fatality rate, and whether it could have been a lab leak. This completely set fire to their credibility. Then they pivoted from attacking pro-maskers to attacking hydroxychloroquine advocates. These attacks consisted of highly ineffectual attempts at censorship: censored enough that everyone can see that censorship is being attempted, not censored enough to stop anyone from seeing it.
People are neither geniuses nor idiots. When the public health establishment turned on a dime from attacking masks to attacking hydroxychloroquine, many people inferred from that fact alone that hydroxychloroquine must be effective. It isn't, but the alternate world in which hydroxychloroquine was effective would have looked the same, so the reasoning was valid.
Given that history, and especially given how recent that history was, continuing to censor "COVID-19 misleading information" would be utterly insane.