6 ms·

Well, first of all, “tweets” don’t “trend”. Terms do. So this description feels off, already. Next, I wonder, but don’t care enough to look it up, if this guy

Well, first of all, “tweets” don’t “trend”. Terms do. So this description feels off, already. Next, I wonder, but don’t care enough to look it up, if this guy is adequately summarized by only mentioning his concern for children? Screw that, I did look him up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pa.... He was one of the people behind the “Great” Barrington Declaration and, kn the early months of the pandemic, argued, among other things, that COVID is rather harmless. He also took money from the airline industry without disclosing as much in his publications. It’s arguable if Bhattacharya’s reach needed to be limited. What’s really hard to argue is that the thing about children is an adequate characterization of his statements during the pandemic. This is prime evidence that this story is not presenting anything close to a fair interpretation of the documents they have been given, and that you have, unfortunately, fallen for it.

scifibestfi 4y ago
He's a Dr. and a Stanford professor of medicine. The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors. They were warning about the harm lockdowns would do to kids and they were correct. Even if they weren't, this would still be unacceptable.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  As I said, it’s debatable if the guy’s reach needed to be limited, the point you are arguing. What’s not debatable is that the breathless outrage-bait under discussion misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach with a straw-man argument, and so did you.
  - indoclay 4y ago
    > misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach Could you help me understand what the argument is that this person should have been put on any form of blacklist?
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  According to its own website, the great barrington declaration was signed by around 15,000 doctors.
  - scifibestfi 4y ago
    Thanks. I didn't realize there was a further breakdown from the 934,094 total and can't edit it now. Here's the exact breakdown. medical & public health scientists: 15,989 medical practitioners: 47,278 concerned citizens: 870,827
    - neuronexmachina 4y ago
      FYI, anybody who wants to can sign the "Great Barrington Declaration," and check whatever box they want: https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign The list of medical practitioners and scientists includes a number of homeopaths and obvious fake names.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors You're off by an order of magnitude and then some. Also, none of the numbers they do claim are verifiable. https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ You know, when you make a specific claim like that it's really worth the 30 seconds it takes to check it again to verify your memory is correct.
- philjohn 4y ago
  Sounds like appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    Exactly, you can't trust any authority (Twitter moderation team included) to determine truth for you.
sergiotapia 4y ago
All of that is irrelevant. Twitter had a secret blacklist. Gross behavior from a gross company.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  A “secret blacklist” that’s been known forever, or at least for two years: https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t=pYXrm6GNUDU_kv9QmDoxhg https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t...
  - veec_cas_tant 4y ago
    Here is an announcement from 2018[0]: >“It’s shaping up to be one of the highest-impact things that we’ve done,” the chief executive, Jack Dorsey ,said of the update, which will change how tweets appear in search results or conversations. “The spirit of the thing is that we want to take the burden off the person receiving abuse or mob-like behavior.” > The new system will use behavioral signals to assess whether a Twitter account is adding to – or detracting from – the tenor of conversations... > The updated algorithm will result in certain tweets being pushed further down in a list of search results or replies, but will not delete them from the platform. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/15/twitter-ranking-algorithm-change-trolling-harassment-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/15/twitter-r...
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      > The updated algorithm will result These screenshots are about actions taken by Twitter employees, not an updated algorithm.
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      IMO that's fine, but if you want me to trust such a system, the author should see on their tweet some indication that it's been demoted.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    ... and I've worked on Reveddit for four years. Less than 1% of Redditors know that all removed comments are secretly removed. It's hard to make people care about this stuff. Most of us only start to see the harm of something when it's shown in context. Just showing that something can be theoretically harmful isn't enough.
yucky 4y ago
[flagged]
- etchalon 4y ago
  There was data to suggest that. The data that suggested that was linked in the article you posted: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
  - yucky 4y ago
    From your link "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization" Does 90% equal 100% now? Her statement was false, even based on the limited data set you're referencing. It's even more false now.
    - etchalon 4y ago
      People sometimes speak in hyperbole as a point of emphasis. Behold, humanity.
      - yucky 4y ago
        If we can now expect the leading health experts in the world to be potentially speaking in hyperbole, then we can't expect the public to trust what they say to be accurate. That's a problem.
        etchalon 4y ago
        If you take someone casually rounding up from 90% to 100% as a deep reason for concern, I have some bad news for you regarding weather forecasts.
        yucky 4y ago
        No expert in any field would tell you that "casually rounding from 90% to 100%" should ever be done in any serious setting. Ever. Idiots on the Internet are free to do so, but not the Director of the CDC or the US President. That gets people killed.

scifibestfi 4y ago

He's a Dr. and a Stanford professor of medicine. The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors. They were warning about the harm lockdowns would do to kids and they were correct. Even if they weren't, this would still be unacceptable.

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
As I said, it’s debatable if the guy’s reach needed to be limited, the point you are arguing. What’s not debatable is that the breathless outrage-bait under discussion misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach with a straw-man argument, and so did you.
- indoclay 4y ago
  > misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach Could you help me understand what the argument is that this person should have been put on any form of blacklist?
joshuamorton 4y ago
According to its own website, the great barrington declaration was signed by around 15,000 doctors.
- scifibestfi 4y ago
  Thanks. I didn't realize there was a further breakdown from the 934,094 total and can't edit it now. Here's the exact breakdown. medical & public health scientists: 15,989 medical practitioners: 47,278 concerned citizens: 870,827
  - neuronexmachina 4y ago
    FYI, anybody who wants to can sign the "Great Barrington Declaration," and check whatever box they want: https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign The list of medical practitioners and scientists includes a number of homeopaths and obvious fake names.
anigbrowl 4y ago
The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors You're off by an order of magnitude and then some. Also, none of the numbers they do claim are verifiable. https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ You know, when you make a specific claim like that it's really worth the 30 seconds it takes to check it again to verify your memory is correct.
philjohn 4y ago
Sounds like appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Exactly, you can't trust any authority (Twitter moderation team included) to determine truth for you.

sergiotapia 4y ago

All of that is irrelevant. Twitter had a secret blacklist. Gross behavior from a gross company.

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
A “secret blacklist” that’s been known forever, or at least for two years: https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t=pYXrm6GNUDU_kv9QmDoxhg https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t...
- veec_cas_tant 4y ago
  Here is an announcement from 2018[0]: >“It’s shaping up to be one of the highest-impact things that we’ve done,” the chief executive, Jack Dorsey ,said of the update, which will change how tweets appear in search results or conversations. “The spirit of the thing is that we want to take the burden off the person receiving abuse or mob-like behavior.” > The new system will use behavioral signals to assess whether a Twitter account is adding to – or detracting from – the tenor of conversations... > The updated algorithm will result in certain tweets being pushed further down in a list of search results or replies, but will not delete them from the platform. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/15/twitter-ranking-algorithm-change-trolling-harassment-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/15/twitter-r...
  - jdminhbg 4y ago
    > The updated algorithm will result These screenshots are about actions taken by Twitter employees, not an updated algorithm.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    IMO that's fine, but if you want me to trust such a system, the author should see on their tweet some indication that it's been demoted.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  ... and I've worked on Reveddit for four years. Less than 1% of Redditors know that all removed comments are secretly removed. It's hard to make people care about this stuff. Most of us only start to see the harm of something when it's shown in context. Just showing that something can be theoretically harmful isn't enough.

yucky 4y ago

[flagged]

etchalon 4y ago
There was data to suggest that. The data that suggested that was linked in the article you posted: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
- yucky 4y ago
  From your link "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization" Does 90% equal 100% now? Her statement was false, even based on the limited data set you're referencing. It's even more false now.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    People sometimes speak in hyperbole as a point of emphasis. Behold, humanity.
    - yucky 4y ago
      If we can now expect the leading health experts in the world to be potentially speaking in hyperbole, then we can't expect the public to trust what they say to be accurate. That's a problem.
      - etchalon 4y ago
        If you take someone casually rounding up from 90% to 100% as a deep reason for concern, I have some bad news for you regarding weather forecasts.
        yucky 4y ago
        No expert in any field would tell you that "casually rounding from 90% to 100%" should ever be done in any serious setting. Ever. Idiots on the Internet are free to do so, but not the Director of the CDC or the US President. That gets people killed.