The new Twitter, under Musk

[Gloria27]

If he were interested in defending free speech with balance and humility, and with the same logical and methodical approach that he applies to purely technical challenges (tunnel-boring, space travel, battery design), we would continue to celebrate him.

When, instead, he rebrands "freedom from consequences" as "freedom of speech," applies it asymmetrically to the worst among us (don't forget that the left got Kathy Griffin back -- that threat to humanity), and does so under the phony cover of Twitter polls, he shows what a true a$$hole he is. Some would call this "being canceled." It's really just people learning how awful and transactional he is. He is "self-canceling" before our very eyes. Same as Ye and Kyrie Irving.

I was his biggest fan years ago -- and way before I learned what kind of person he is.

Of course we still celebrate Henry Ford so maybe there is hope for another awful-human-as-auto-magnate.

He actually brought some balance, removed bots, reinstated some people while kept others banned (like Alex Jones). This is what balance is about, not shutting down the other side when you don't agree with them. This is why Twitter will NOT die as some people hope.

I get you don't like him, you are totally entitled to your opinion and this is why this tread exists, so we can discuss. I am happy to be able to have this conversation with you even if we don't agree or have the same opinion about him.

I will have to google Kathy Griffin now.

 

[LilAlex]

I will have to google Kathy Griffin now.

And this is exactly my point -- thank you. There is no equivalence between a hack-comedian who made a poor-taste joke and an army of hate-mongers bent on revolution who persistently deny the results of the 2020 election and who are responsible for the US's 900,000 excess COVID deaths (not total COVID deaths -- unnecessary and preventable COVID deaths) through through their anti-science denialism. Letting them all out of their cages -- plus lefty Kathy Griffin (!) -- is not "balance."

Just like how gutting the IRS does no affect all of us "equally" -- it disproportionately benefits the habitual tax cheats at the expense of those of us who willingly (if, at times, grudgingly) pay our fair share. And who are the habitual tax cheats, you ask? The people who want to abolish the IRS, some of whom were President.

And continuing the Twitter ban on Alex Jones (n of one!) is just economic self-interest for Twitter/Musk -- Jones is how many billions in debt with more to come? No self-interested business-person would hand over the keys to him and risk being a co-defendant. Hardly a hallmark of thoughtful moderation on Twitter's part.

Vis-a-vis Musk, it's not that I "don't like him." I'm sure there are lots of people I don't like whom I never even think about. But those people aren't trying their best to wreck my country for entertainment and personal gain.

Not much more to say here. Carry on.

 

[Gloria27]

And this is exactly my point -- thank you. There is no equivalence between a hack-comedian who made a poor-taste joke and an army of hate-mongers bent on revolution who persistently deny the results of the 2020 election and who are responsible for the US's 900,000 excess COVID deaths (not total COVID deaths -- unnecessary and preventable COVID deaths) through through their anti-science denialism. Letting them all out of their cages -- plus lefty Kathy Griffin (!) -- is not "balance."

Just like how gutting the IRS does no affect all of us "equally" -- it disproportionately benefits the habitual tax cheats at the expense of those of us who willingly (if, at times, grudgingly) pay our fair share. And who are the habitual tax cheats, you ask? The people who want to abolish the IRS, some of whom were President.

And continuing the Twitter ban on Alex Jones (n of one!) is just economic self-interest for Twitter/Musk -- Jones is how many billions in debt with more to come? No self-interested business-person would hand over the keys to him and risk being a co-defendant. Hardly a hallmark of thoughtful moderation on Twitter's part.

Vis-a-vis Musk, it's not that I "don't like him." I'm sure there are lots of people I don't like whom I never even think about. But those people aren't trying their best to wreck my country for entertainment and personal gain.

Not much more to say here. Carry on.

Here we go again with the narrative called pandemic of the unvaxxed. That narrative collapsed weeks ago when a Pfizer rep. admitted in front of the whole EU commision that they've not tested the product for efficacy on stopping transmission prior to rollout so the whole green pass thing was a sharade that wrecked lives for nothing (and probably helped the spread since people with the passes travelled freely).

I know nothing about the IRS story, I'm on the "tax the rich" page.

If twitter (or social media) can wreck a country then it can wreck it in any direction, so an equilibrium of some sort is required.

 

[LilAlex]

Here we go again with the narrative called pandemic of the unvaxxed. That narrative collapsed weeks ago

You are self-owning here. You are mistaking absence of evidence for evidence of absence. Yes, much was initially unknown about the vaccine's efficacy. Huge surprise. Pfizer talking about what was known at the time. There were huge knowledge gaps. There are more doctors who smoke than are unvaccinated for COVID.

I have spent a decent bit of the past few years in ICUs filled with COVID patients on ventilators, ECMO, and continuous dialysis. (Google it.) They were overwhelmingly unvaccinated (95%) when our state was ~ 60%-ish vaccinated. I spoke with some of their family members who, as their loved ones slowly died, still refused to get vaccinated. So sad and so silly and so preventable. Compare the US to Australia -- "do your research." See who got the short end of the Rupert Murdoch stick.

I literally can't believe that now COVID did not happen and vaccines don't work. On a thread about Elon Musk. On the plus side, at least you are back on Twitter.

 

[Gloria27]

You are self-owning here. You are mistaking absence of evidence for evidence of absence. Yes, much was initially unknown about the vaccine's efficacy. Huge surprise. Pfizer talking about what was known at the time. There were huge knowledge gaps. There are more doctors who smoke than are unvaccinated for COVID.

I have spent a decent bit of the past few years in ICUs filled with COVID patients on ventilators, ECMO, and continuous dialysis. (Google it.) They were overwhelmingly unvaccinated (95%) when our state was ~ 60%-ish vaccinated. I spoke with some of their family members who, as their loved ones slowly died, still refused to get vaccinated. So sad and so silly and so preventable. Compare the US to Australia -- "do your research." See who got the short end of the Rupert Murdoch stick.

I literally can't believe that now COVID did not happen and vaccines don't work. On a thread about Elon Musk. On the plus side, at least you are back on Twitter.

The attitude "we didn't know this at the time" will bite people right back when new info emerges, it is just a matter of time.

The unvaxxed are not the majority dying from Covid right now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinated-people-now-make-up-majority-covid-deaths/

Btw, I'm not against anyone getting the vax, do what you want with your body, isn't this the my body my choice philosophy?

I've never been on twitter and probably never will be.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

You knew this was coming, and no, I can't help myself
Ok, only this quick derail and then I'll pipe down, one more time for the back in case anyone is confused or wondering why things are happening.
That's science.
That's how vaccines work, all of them.
If we could continue to get boosters to the populace, the deaths would decrease.
It isn't because vaccines didn't work. They did.
It's largely because the people who need the boosters aren't able to get them or access to monoclonal antibodies etc.
Here's why:

Who Is Dying from COVID Now and Why

Nearly three years into the pandemic, COVID’s mortality burden is growing in certain groups of people

www.scientificamerican.com

US Coronavirus vaccine tracker

Each state has a different plan — and different challenges — in distributing vaccines. Learn more about who is getting vaccinated by parsing the data by age, sex and race.

usafacts.org

79% of the country is partially vaxxed and 68% fully at this point, but that doesn't include boosters and once you do it is only 33% - so of course the number of vaccination deaths will slightly increase when taking factors into consideration. Deaths are primarily increasing for rural 65+ without a booster.
Mutations, they're a thing...and they aren't going away.


It's a virus, that's what they do. So, what we can do is tweak our vaccines and take the boosters as they come. Just like we do with the flu.

We should get boosters to the populations that desperately need them.
But there are days when I think maaaaybe we should begin to triage care. Choices, and all that.

P.S. Drink your Ovaltine and Elon is a total dillhole.

 

[kenny]

...
Btw, I'm not against anyone getting the vax, do what you want with your body, isn't this the my body my choice philosophy?
...

Now when what you do may kill me.

 

[Gloria27]

You knew this was coming, and no, I can't help myself
Ok, only this quick derail and then I'll pipe down, one more time for the back in case anyone is confused or wondering why things are happening.
That's science.
That's how vaccines work, all of them.
If we could continue to get boosters to the populace, the deaths would decrease.
It isn't because vaccines didn't work. They did.
It's largely because the people who need the boosters aren't able to get them or access to monoclonal antibodies etc.
Here's why:

Who Is Dying from COVID Now and Why

Nearly three years into the pandemic, COVID’s mortality burden is growing in certain groups of people

www.scientificamerican.com

US Coronavirus vaccine tracker

Each state has a different plan — and different challenges — in distributing vaccines. Learn more about who is getting vaccinated by parsing the data by age, sex and race.

usafacts.org

79% of the country is partially vaxxed and 68% fully at this point, but that doesn't include boosters and once you do it is only 33% - so of course the number of vaccination deaths will slightly increase when taking factors into consideration. Deaths are primarily increasing for rural 65+ without a booster.
Mutations, they're a thing...and they aren't going away.


It's a virus, that's what they do. So, what we can do is tweak our vaccines and take the boosters as they come. Just like we do with the flu.

We should get boosters to the populations that desperately need them.
But there are days when I think maaaaybe we should begin to triage care. Choices, and all that.

P.S. Drink your Ovaltine and Elon is a total dillhole.

ItsMainlyYou, you can spin this all you want, blame it on lack of boosters from now on. I am actually rooting for them to work and for you to be right, that would be ideal.

Why do you think the studies on efficacy were 3 months long and not 6 months?

Info about how badly the research was conducted was released by the Ventavia whistleblower a long time ago and published in the British Medical Journal (Science! ) https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

The attitude exhibited here is the reason why there cannot be a proper conversation, a real dialog, covert insults and distastful labels towards the other side.

You can take all the boosters you want, lifetime subscription if that is YOUR choice!
I will say no more, because that will be stooping too low.

Now when what you do may kill me.

1. Aren't you protected by the vaccine, isn't that supposed to protect YOU?

By the way, my husband brought the virus from vaccinated people and passed on to me, that's where that cycle ended.

2. Bet you are pro choice when it suits you and when it's about abortions, you switch sides.
You are either pro choice or not.



And this right here is why Twitter will live on folks!
Ok, this is also all the energy I can give to you today, please carry on.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Since you asked:
There is no spin. That's not what science does. Science is mutable.
There is nothing to spin. It's about saving lives.
You're arguing for one research facility with procedural issues in Texas not total efficacy, ie, not that they don't work. Covid research including vaccine research is conducted around the world at many facilities. Still ongoing. Right now. Science isn't about one dissenting voice-there are always those- it's about hundreds and more coming to the same repeated conclusions to come to consensus in quest of an answer. Are they talking about Moderna who developed the vaccine in the first place? Is this worldwide? No? Do you know enough about research processes and the subject to know what they're telling you? No? Then look skeptically, ask questions and look to the consensus.
This is what the prevailing experts around the planet, with far more knowledge and expertise than you or I have found by the continued study of the data. Vaccines work. They didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, they spent years learning the science and then implementing it. If you want to know why, as the collective we know it so far, for all of this, you can look to virology and epidemiology to answer all of your questions in granular detail.

I wish it could a soundbite, FB post or something easily jot off. It isn't. The body and the diseases that effect it are extremely complicated. There are no easy answers. Nothing is perfect. But, it's better than dead.

Science. It does the body good.




*Twitter is a quickly deepening cesspool of misinformation and hate speech full of people wanting simplistic pat answers to complex questions. Swim at your own risk.

 

[Cerulean]

ItsMainlyYou, you can spin this all you want, blame it on lack of boosters from now on. I am actually rooting for them to work and for you to be right, that would be ideal.

Why do you think the studies on efficacy were 3 months long and not 6 months?

Info about how badly the research was conducted was released by the Ventavia whistleblower a long time ago and published in the British Medical Journal (Science! ) https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

The attitude exhibited here is the reason why there cannot be a proper conversation, a real dialog, covert insults and distastful labels towards the other side.

You can take all the boosters you want, lifetime subscription if that is YOUR choice!
I will say no more, because that will be stooping too low.


1. Aren't you protected by the vaccine, isn't that supposed to protect YOU?

By the way, my husband brought the virus from vaccinated people and passed on to me, that's where that cycle ended.

2. Bet you are pro choice when it suits you and when it's about abortions, you switch sides.
You are either pro choice or not.



And this right here is why Twitter will live on folks!
Ok, this is also all the energy I can give to you today, please carry on.

I’m not going to touch the covid topic with a ten foot pole, but if you think Twitter will survive because it’s some bastion of the highest ideal of truth - with all due respect you don’t know what you’re talking about, because you seem to misunderstand that it is a for-profit business and you further misunderstand how Twitter actually makes money. And they haven’t seen a cent of profit since 2019.

Elon vastly overpaid for Twitter. He will drop the axe in a heartbeat if he sees the debt as ultimately unfavorable to him and his personal interests. I feel almost certain that bankruptcy is in the near future. Whether investors deem it worthy of saving remains to be seen. Maybe if Twitter goes bankrupt he can restructure the debt to save it. My point is, it won’t be some fallacious and irresponsible implementation of “free speech” that saves Twitter. It’ll be a lot of money from a lot of banks and investors who aren’t in it for charity or to protect higher ideals of any kind whatsoever.

To help everyone here understand , the vast majority of Twitter’s revenue is through ads (90%), most of it is big businesses, but if it becomes rife with scammers and bad actors (which it has and will continue to, thanks to his freedom-of-speech-absolutism) he will expose businesses to huge amounts of risk. Businesses don’t like risk, and many have already pulled the plug on ads budgets. It turns out that the old saying “you don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is entirely relevant here. You may not give a hoot about whether McDonalds and Nestle want to advertise on Twitter, but if you want Twitter to stick around, you should.

What people also don’t understand is that many of those checks and balances they use to ban users are also about reducing harm for other people on Twitter (not just revenue loss for business who advertise there.)

Twitter itself is an amoral technology IMO, but bad actors use social platforms like Twitter to cause harm, INTENTIONALLY. To @LilAlex ’s point. Big companies like Twitter owe it to its millions of users to maintain the ability to ban people who are unsafe - whether they are scamming businesses, real people on Twitter, using Twitter to incite violence, to harass, share hate speech, spread misinformation, bully, impersonate, stalk..the list goes on. People do ugly, disgusting things on social media when they can do it at an arm’s length and not have to look their victims in the eye (and yes, there are victims of these crimes).

You can’t just pull out the rug from under all of those levers to ban people who commit those actions without some serious consequences. Laws haven’t caught up with technology, and so the onus falls to
companies like Twitter so PREVENT HARM and KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. And just because you or someone you know hasn’t been impacted, doesn’t mean it won’t be happening at scale.

I’m also going to credential myself as someone who works in big tech at a very similar business. I am intimately aware of all the harm that Elon’s new modus operandi can cause. He’s just too privileged and too arrogant to give a damn and most people who support him don’t really consider the fallout of thinking about ethics in a way that is unhinged from reality - it is a dangerous game

 

[Matata]

^One other reminder in case anyone forgot, private companies are under no obligation to allow free speech. The First Amendment applies only to government interference or regulation of speech.

Free speech is not free of consequences which, among other things, may be banning from a site and criticism from other users.

The words free speech have been bastardized by extremists who want no limits on what they say and believe they are immune from the consequences of their words. The hateful and ignorant have weaponized the use of this right to cause as much harm as they can and those who don't subscribe to that behavior need to raise their voices and make some noise to drown out the riffraff. A little civility wouldn't hurt either.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Hahaha, I wanted to share because it's close to what I'd tell you over coffee, once I'd gauge how much 'blue' language you can handle from me at the time
Adam Conover, of Adam Ruins Everything without the training wheels. Yeah, he swears even more than me in this, but I just find it funny and germane to thread.
(This is just the Google link to the YouTube video)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjusrjopc_7AhUtF1kFHbgAAgkQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoVj4kZF-Fgk&usg=AOvVaw38clOTgpoeQr4bErwGjE6e

 

[Lookinagain]

Free speech is not free of consequences which, among other things, may be banning from a site and criticism from other users.

So true, and people banter around the term of "free speech" acting like all speech is included in that term. They forget that there is speech that is not lawful, and therefore the term "free speech" is not all encompassing. and which the government does not have to allow, There are limits, such as incitement to violence. And I think the issue with Musk's interpretation of free speech is that he seems to forget this. And enabling those who violate the limits on "free speech" is what I cannot support.

 

[yssie]

If he were interested in defending free speech with balance and humility, and with the same logical and methodical approach that he applies to purely technical challenges (tunnel-boring, space travel, battery design), we would continue to celebrate him.

When, instead, he rebrands "freedom from consequences" as "freedom of speech," applies it asymmetrically to the worst among us (don't forget that the left got Kathy Griffin back -- that threat to humanity), and does so under the phony cover of Twitter polls, he shows what a true a$$hole he is. Some would call this "being canceled." It's really just people learning how awful and transactional he is. He is "self-canceling" before our very eyes. Same as Ye and Kyrie Irving.

I was his biggest fan years ago -- and way before I learned what kind of person he is.

Of course we still celebrate Henry Ford so maybe there is hope for another awful-human-as-auto-magnate.

Bravo. This.

 

[yssie]

And this is exactly my point -- thank you. There is no equivalence between a hack-comedian who made a poor-taste joke and an army of hate-mongers bent on revolution who persistently deny the results of the 2020 election and who are responsible for the US's 900,000 excess COVID deaths (not total COVID deaths -- unnecessary and preventable COVID deaths) through through their anti-science denialism. Letting them all out of their cages -- plus lefty Kathy Griffin (!) -- is not "balance."

Just like how gutting the IRS does no affect all of us "equally" -- it disproportionately benefits the habitual tax cheats at the expense of those of us who willingly (if, at times, grudgingly) pay our fair share. And who are the habitual tax cheats, you ask? The people who want to abolish the IRS, some of whom were President.

And continuing the Twitter ban on Alex Jones (n of one!) is just economic self-interest for Twitter/Musk -- Jones is how many billions in debt with more to come? No self-interested business-person would hand over the keys to him and risk being a co-defendant. Hardly a hallmark of thoughtful moderation on Twitter's part.

Vis-a-vis Musk, it's not that I "don't like him." I'm sure there are lots of people I don't like whom I never even think about. But those people aren't trying their best to wreck my country for entertainment and personal gain.

Not much more to say here. Carry on.

And this.

 

[yssie]

You are self-owning here. You are mistaking absence of evidence for evidence of absence. Yes, much was initially unknown about the vaccine's efficacy. Huge surprise. Pfizer talking about what was known at the time. There were huge knowledge gaps. There are more doctors who smoke than are unvaccinated for COVID.

I have spent a decent bit of the past few years in ICUs filled with COVID patients on ventilators, ECMO, and continuous dialysis. (Google it.) They were overwhelmingly unvaccinated (95%) when our state was ~ 60%-ish vaccinated. I spoke with some of their family members who, as their loved ones slowly died, still refused to get vaccinated. So sad and so silly and so preventable. Compare the US to Australia -- "do your research." See who got the short end of the Rupert Murdoch stick.

I literally can't believe that now COVID did not happen and vaccines don't work. On a thread about Elon Musk. On the plus side, at least you are back on Twitter.

And this.

 

[yssie]

You knew this was coming, and no, I can't help myself
Ok, only this quick derail and then I'll pipe down, one more time for the back in case anyone is confused or wondering why things are happening.
That's science.
That's how vaccines work, all of them.
If we could continue to get boosters to the populace, the deaths would decrease.
It isn't because vaccines didn't work. They did.
It's largely because the people who need the boosters aren't able to get them or access to monoclonal antibodies etc.
Here's why:

Who Is Dying from COVID Now and Why

Nearly three years into the pandemic, COVID’s mortality burden is growing in certain groups of people

www.scientificamerican.com

US Coronavirus vaccine tracker

Each state has a different plan — and different challenges — in distributing vaccines. Learn more about who is getting vaccinated by parsing the data by age, sex and race.

usafacts.org

79% of the country is partially vaxxed and 68% fully at this point, but that doesn't include boosters and once you do it is only 33% - so of course the number of vaccination deaths will slightly increase when taking factors into consideration. Deaths are primarily increasing for rural 65+ without a booster.
Mutations, they're a thing...and they aren't going away.


It's a virus, that's what they do. So, what we can do is tweak our vaccines and take the boosters as they come. Just like we do with the flu.

We should get boosters to the populations that desperately need them.
But there are days when I think maaaaybe we should begin to triage care. Choices, and all that.

P.S. Drink your Ovaltine and Elon is a total dillhole.

This too.

 

[yssie]

Since you asked:
There is no spin. That's not what science does. Science is mutable.
There is nothing to spin. It's about saving lives.
You're arguing for one research facility with procedural issues in Texas not total efficacy, ie, not that they don't work. Covid research including vaccine research is conducted around the world at many facilities. Still ongoing. Right now. Science isn't about one dissenting voice-there are always those- it's about hundreds and more coming to the same repeated conclusions to come to consensus in quest of an answer. Are they talking about Moderna who developed the vaccine in the first place? Is this worldwide? No? Do you know enough about research processes and the subject to know what they're telling you? No? Then look skeptically, ask questions and look to the consensus.
This is what the prevailing experts around the planet, with far more knowledge and expertise than you or I have found by the continued study of the data. Vaccines work. They didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, they spent years learning the science and then implementing it. If you want to know why, as the collective we know it so far, for all of this, you can look to virology and epidemiology to answer all of your questions in granular detail.

I wish it could a soundbite, FB post or something easily jot off. It isn't. The body and the diseases that effect it are extremely complicated. There are no easy answers. Nothing is perfect. But, it's better than dead.

Science. It does the body good.




*Twitter is a quickly deepening cesspool of misinformation and hate speech full of people wanting simplistic pat answers to complex questions. Swim at your own risk.

This.

 

[yssie]

I’m not going to touch the covid topic with a ten foot pole, but if you think Twitter will survive because it’s some bastion of the highest ideal of truth - with all due respect you don’t know what you’re talking about, because you seem to misunderstand that it is a for-profit business and you further misunderstand how Twitter actually makes money. And they haven’t seen a cent of profit since 2019.

Elon vastly overpaid for Twitter. He will drop the axe in a heartbeat if he sees the debt as ultimately unfavorable to him and his personal interests. I feel almost certain that bankruptcy is in the near future. Whether investors deem it worthy of saving remains to be seen. Maybe if Twitter goes bankrupt he can restructure the debt to save it. My point is, it won’t be some fallacious and irresponsible implementation of “free speech” that saves Twitter. It’ll be a lot of money from a lot of banks and investors who aren’t in it for charity or to protect higher ideals of any kind whatsoever.

To help everyone here understand , the vast majority of Twitter’s revenue is through ads (90%), most of it is big businesses, but if it becomes rife with scammers and bad actors (which it has and will continue to, thanks to his freedom-of-speech-absolutism) he will expose businesses to huge amounts of risk. Businesses don’t like risk, and many have already pulled the plug on ads budgets. It turns out that the old saying “you don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is entirely relevant here. You may not give a hoot about whether McDonalds and Nestle want to advertise on Twitter, but if you want Twitter to stick around, you should.

What people also don’t understand is that many of those checks and balances they use to ban users are also about reducing harm for other people on Twitter (not just revenue loss for business who advertise there.)

Twitter itself is an amoral technology IMO, but bad actors use social platforms like Twitter to cause harm, INTENTIONALLY. To @LilAlex ’s point. Big companies like Twitter owe it to its millions of users to maintain the ability to ban people who are unsafe - whether they are scamming businesses, real people on Twitter, using Twitter to incite violence, to harass, share hate speech, spread misinformation, bully, impersonate, stalk..the list goes on. People do ugly, disgusting things on social media when they can do it at an arm’s length and not have to look their victims in the eye (and yes, there are victims of these crimes).

You can’t just pull out the rug from under all of those levers to ban people who commit those actions without some serious consequences. Laws haven’t caught up with technology, and so the onus falls to
companies like Twitter so PREVENT HARM and KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. And just because you or someone you know hasn’t been impacted, doesn’t mean it won’t be happening at scale.

I’m also going to credential myself as someone who works in big tech at a very similar business. I am intimately aware of all the harm that Elon’s new modus operandi can cause. He’s just too privileged and too arrogant to give a damn and most people who support him don’t really consider the fallout of thinking about ethics in a way that is unhinged from reality - it is a dangerous game

So much this.

 

[yssie]

^One other reminder in case anyone forgot, private companies are under no obligation to allow free speech. The First Amendment applies only to government interference or regulation of speech.

Free speech is not free of consequences which, among other things, may be banning from a site and criticism from other users.

The words free speech have been bastardized by extremists who want no limits on what they say and believe they are immune from the consequences of their words. The hateful and ignorant have weaponized the use of this right to cause as much harm as they can and those who don't subscribe to that behavior need to raise their voices and make some noise to drown out the riffraff. A little civility wouldn't hurt either.

Yuppers. This.

 

[yssie]

I work in tech. Same as Cerulean. Elon Musk may be a visionary, but anyone who believes he’s also the brains behind implementation of his visions is sorely mistaken… Including Elon Musk himself

 

[monarch64]

When Muskrat stans just can’t seem to stop defending him it tells me exactly what kind of person they are. Barf

 

[Gloria27]

I’m not going to touch the covid topic with a ten foot pole, but if you think Twitter will survive because it’s some bastion of the highest ideal of truth - with all due respect you don’t know what you’re talking about, because you seem to misunderstand that it is a for-profit business and you further misunderstand how Twitter actually makes money. And they haven’t seen a cent of profit since 2019.

Elon vastly overpaid for Twitter. He will drop the axe in a heartbeat if he sees the debt as ultimately unfavorable to him and his personal interests. I feel almost certain that bankruptcy is in the near future. Whether investors deem it worthy of saving remains to be seen. Maybe if Twitter goes bankrupt he can restructure the debt to save it. My point is, it won’t be some fallacious and irresponsible implementation of “free speech” that saves Twitter. It’ll be a lot of money from a lot of banks and investors who aren’t in it for charity or to protect higher ideals of any kind whatsoever.

To help everyone here understand , the vast majority of Twitter’s revenue is through ads (90%), most of it is big businesses, but if it becomes rife with scammers and bad actors (which it has and will continue to, thanks to his freedom-of-speech-absolutism) he will expose businesses to huge amounts of risk. Businesses don’t like risk, and many have already pulled the plug on ads budgets. It turns out that the old saying “you don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is entirely relevant here. You may not give a hoot about whether McDonalds and Nestle want to advertise on Twitter, but if you want Twitter to stick around, you should.

What people also don’t understand is that many of those checks and balances they use to ban users are also about reducing harm for other people on Twitter (not just revenue loss for business who advertise there.)

Twitter itself is an amoral technology IMO, but bad actors use social platforms like Twitter to cause harm, INTENTIONALLY. To @LilAlex ’s point. Big companies like Twitter owe it to its millions of users to maintain the ability to ban people who are unsafe - whether they are scamming businesses, real people on Twitter, using Twitter to incite violence, to harass, share hate speech, spread misinformation, bully, impersonate, stalk..the list goes on. People do ugly, disgusting things on social media when they can do it at an arm’s length and not have to look their victims in the eye (and yes, there are victims of these crimes).

You can’t just pull out the rug from under all of those levers to ban people who commit those actions without some serious consequences. Laws haven’t caught up with technology, and so the onus falls to
companies like Twitter so PREVENT HARM and KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. And just because you or someone you know hasn’t been impacted, doesn’t mean it won’t be happening at scale.

I’m also going to credential myself as someone who works in big tech at a very similar business. I am intimately aware of all the harm that Elon’s new modus operandi can cause. He’s just too privileged and too arrogant to give a damn and most people who support him don’t really consider the fallout of thinking about ethics in a way that is unhinged from reality - it is a dangerous game

I totally agree with this, people who do harm, real harm, should not be tolerated on social platforms.

The delicate issue here is another, some people cry wolf when there is no wolf and try to get the other side banned just because they have a different opinion politically or otherwise. This happened a lot on Twitter.

Since you asked:
There is no spin. That's not what science does. Science is mutable.
There is nothing to spin. It's about saving lives.
You're arguing for one research facility with procedural issues in Texas not total efficacy, ie, not that they don't work. Covid research including vaccine research is conducted around the world at many facilities. Still ongoing. Right now. Science isn't about one dissenting voice-there are always those- it's about hundreds and more coming to the same repeated conclusions to come to consensus in quest of an answer. Are they talking about Moderna who developed the vaccine in the first place? Is this worldwide? No? Do you know enough about research processes and the subject to know what they're telling you? No? Then look skeptically, ask questions and look to the consensus.
This is what the prevailing experts around the planet, with far more knowledge and expertise than you or I have found by the continued study of the data. Vaccines work. They didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, they spent years learning the science and then implementing it. If you want to know why, as the collective we know it so far, for all of this, you can look to virology and epidemiology to answer all of your questions in granular detail.

I wish it could a soundbite, FB post or something easily jot off. It isn't. The body and the diseases that effect it are extremely complicated. There are no easy answers. Nothing is perfect. But, it's better than dead.

Science. It does the body good.




*Twitter is a quickly deepening cesspool of misinformation and hate speech full of people wanting simplistic pat answers to complex questions. Swim at your own risk.

Please do not try to paint me as an anti vaxxer, half my family is vaxxed, I have nothing against the ones who chose this, not even remotely.
Also I am vaccinated (normal vaccines) and believe strongly in vaccines, I even got the rabies vaccine in the past, and no I was not foaming at the mouth
I just want to have a choice over my body when the product has such side effects.

 

[monarch64]

I totally agree with this, people who do harm, real harm, should not be tolerated on social platforms.

The delicate issue here is another, some people cry wolf when there is no wolf and try to get the other side banned just because they have a different opinion politically or otherwise. This happened a lot on Twitter.

Please do not try to paint me as an anti vaxxer, half my family is vaxxed, I have nothing against the ones who chose this, not even remotely.
Also I am vaccinated (normal vaccines) and believe strongly in vaccines, I even got the rabies vaccine in the past, and no I was not foaming at the mouth
I just want to have a choice over my body when the product has such side effects.

Omg could you get any more trite?

 

[Gloria27]

Omg could you get any more trite?

until it gets through

 

[Cerulean]

I totally agree with this, people who do harm, real harm, should not be tolerated on social platforms.

The delicate issue here is another, some people cry wolf when there is no wolf and try to get the other side banned just because they have a different opinion politically or otherwise. This happened a lot on Twitter.

Please do not try to paint me as an anti vaxxer, half my family is vaxxed, I have nothing against the ones who chose this, not even remotely.
Also I am vaccinated (normal vaccines) and believe strongly in vaccines, I even got the rabies vaccine in the past, and no I was not foaming at the mouth
I just want to have a choice over my body when the product has such side effects.

To be honest, if you think punishing someone who cries wolf is more important, i really urge you to take a step back. It’s a really painfully shortsighted and egocentric way to think about this.

Let me give an example. Twitter serves more than just the USA. There are millions and millions of users worldwide, and many of those users rely on Twitter as their primary news source. Spread of false information and violent rhetoric has obviously impacted things in the USA too, but in countries like, let’s say Brazil, for events like the recent October elections - rhetoric on social media actually proved to be exceptionally dangerous because of misinformation and hate speech against women and minorities. Brazil isn’t a country that has the same levels of protections in general (let alone for women, children and minorities) and it has been crippled by a fascist regime that has deliberately whittled away and discredited the foundations of their democracy

Protests there don’t look the same as they do in the USA - they are violent. People bring guns, homemade bombs, roadblocks to prevent the flow of traffic with no reprieve (putting cities at a standstill and damaging the nation’s economy), inciting military intervention, etc. and there have been intense protests for weeks on behalf of the last fascist, ex-military leader Bolsonaro who lost October elections to a leftist. Recently a crowd of people were filmed giving a Nazi solute while holding Brazilian flags at a protest. And this video was shared on Twitter to incite violence - inciting Nazism in Brazil is a crime, btw. I’m sure you can imagine why. The former president coordinated protests through Twitter, including inciting protestors to target and protest their VERY COURT SYSTEM, and Bolsonaro has used Twitter as a platform to spread propaganda and hate for years.

If that’s not a harrowing enough example I honestly don’t know what is. Do you think Bolsonaro should be allowed to have an active Twitter account that isn’t regulated or monitored?

 

[Gloria27]

To be honest, if you think punishing someone who cries wolf is more important, i really urge you to take a step back. It’s a really painfully shortsighted and egocentric way to think about this.

Let me give an example. Twitter serves more than just the USA. There are millions and millions of users worldwide, and many of those users rely on Twitter as their primary news source. Spread of false information and violent rhetoric has obviously impacted things in the USA too, but in countries like, let’s say Brazil, for events like the recent October elections - rhetoric on social media actually proved to be exceptionally dangerous because of misinformation and hate speech against women and minorities. Brazil isn’t a country that has the same levels of protections in general (let alone for women, children and minorities) and it has been crippled by a fascist regime that has deliberately whittled away and discredited the foundations of their democracy

Protests there don’t look the same as they do in the USA - they are violent. People bring guns, homemade bombs, roadblocks to prevent the flow of traffic with no reprieve (putting cities at a standstill and damaging the nation’s economy), inciting military intervention, etc. and there have been intense protests for weeks on behalf of the last fascist, ex-military leader Bolsonaro who lost October elections to a leftist. Recently a crowd of people were filmed giving a Nazi solute while holding Brazilian flags at a protest. And this video was shared on Twitter to incite violence - inciting Nazism in Brazil is a crime, btw. I’m sure you can imagine why. The former president coordinated protests through Twitter, including inciting protestors to target and protest their VERY COURT SYSTEM, and Bolsonaro has used Twitter as a platform to spread propaganda and hate for years.

If that’s not a harrowing enough example I honestly don’t know what is. Do you think Bolsonaro should be allowed to have an active Twitter account that isn’t regulated or monitored?

Punishing? What? Who?

I think we're not talking about the same issues here. I'm talking about one side holding monopoly over who can or cannot have a voice.

I'll say it again:

I totally agree with this, people who do harm, real harm, should not be tolerated on social platforms.

Answer to your question: no, of course not, he shouldn't have a Twitter account.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I totally agree with this, people who do harm, real harm, should not be tolerated on social platforms.

The delicate issue here is another, some people cry wolf when there is no wolf and try to get the other side banned just because they have a different opinion politically or otherwise. This happened a lot on Twitter.

Please do not try to paint me as an anti vaxxer, half my family is vaxxed, I have nothing against the ones who chose this, not even remotely.
Also I am vaccinated (normal vaccines) and believe strongly in vaccines, I even got the rabies vaccine in the past, and no I was not foaming at the mouth
I just want to have a choice over my body when the product has such side effects.

I didn't think I was.
I'm just answering the question you asked with my viewpoint. There is a difference. All vaccines, all medicines, all procedures have possible side effects. To pick and choose with no real understanding of how they're derived, formulated or produced based on misinformation isn't too bright. It's hypocritical. It's dangerous. it's killed hundreds of thousands. It also doesn't have any more adverse side effects than any other series. Much safer than getting mild Covid itself. They've proven that. There has been exhaustive testing at this point, with billions of shot series given. If one were worried about long term detrimental side effects one is much more likely to have them with an even mild case of Covid, unvaccinated. The vaccine actually helps mitigate those as well.
I believe in caution with an actual basis, if I thought there was some appreciable increase in danger/harm with this vaccine I would never recommend it.

I actually find it really sad and heartbreaking that it's killing Republicans at a rate of 2:1 after vaccines were introduced. This is beyond sad. These were people who believed lies, and it's still killing them. It wasn't some conspiracy, it was ignorance. I am beyond angry this has killed my countrymen. For what? Lies.

Almost Twice as Many Republicans Died From COVID Before the Midterms Than Democrats

The authors of a new study can’t say if this impacted the midterms, but say that it’s “plausible given just how stark the differences in vaccination rates have been, among Democrats and Republicans.”

www.vice.com

Once COVID Vaccines Were Introduced, More Republicans Died Than Democrats

A new Yale study co-authored by SOM’s Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham found that once vaccines were introduced, the rate of excess deaths among Republicans and Democrats began to diverge.

insights.som.yale.edu

The only people I 'hate' are the those who lied to people who didn't know any better when they were scared, for political power, and then watched them die because that's what happened. We watched them die, and we couldn't help them any more. We did the only things we could do and watched them die. I'll never get over that and I'm terrified it's going to happen again.

Freedom has limits when it comes to the health and well being of the whole if you want to benefit from collective society. That's why one must be vaccinated to travel or attend school. If one wants to forgo these protections it's only fair that society gets to dictate what one as a deadly health threat during a pandemic/endemic is allowed to do when in relation the rest.
That's actual freedom. For everybody.
It isn't personal. Thems the breaks.

 

[Gloria27]

I didn't think I was.
I'm just answering the question you asked with my viewpoint. There is a difference. All vaccines, all medicines, all procedures have possible side effects. To pick and choose with no real understanding of how they're derived, formulated or produced based on misinformation isn't too bright. It's hypocritical. It's dangerous. it's killed hundreds of thousands. It also doesn't have any more adverse side effects than any other series. Much safer than getting mild Covid itself. They've proven that. There has been exhaustive testing at this point, with billions of shot series given. If one were worried about long term detrimental side effects one is much more likely to have them with an even mild case of Covid, unvaccinated. The vaccine actually helps mitigate those as well.
I believe in caution with an actual basis, if I thought there was some appreciable increase in danger/harm with this vaccine I would never recommend it.

I actually find it really sad and heartbreaking that it's killing Republicans at a rate of 2:1 after vaccines were introduced. This is beyond sad. These were people who believed lies, and it's still killing them. It wasn't some conspiracy, it was ignorance. I am beyond angry this has killed my countrymen. For what? Lies.

Almost Twice as Many Republicans Died From COVID Before the Midterms Than Democrats

The authors of a new study can’t say if this impacted the midterms, but say that it’s “plausible given just how stark the differences in vaccination rates have been, among Democrats and Republicans.”

www.vice.com

Once COVID Vaccines Were Introduced, More Republicans Died Than Democrats

A new Yale study co-authored by SOM’s Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham found that once vaccines were introduced, the rate of excess deaths among Republicans and Democrats began to diverge.

insights.som.yale.edu

The only people I 'hate' are the those who lied to people who didn't know any better when they were scared, for political power, and then watched them die because that's what happened. We watched them die, and we couldn't help them any more. We did the only things we could do and watched them die. I'll never get over that and I'm terrified it's going to happen again.

Freedom has limits when it comes to the health and well being of the whole if you want to benefit from collective society. That's why one must be vaccinated to travel or attend school. If one wants to forgo these protections it's only fair that society gets to dictate what one as a deadly health threat during a pandemic/endemic is allowed to do when in relation the rest.
That's actual freedom. For everybody.
It isn't personal. Thems the breaks.

Ok, I understand what you mean and I would 100% agree with you if there weren't issues with how this whole pandemic was tackled.
Mistakes were made, data was shared, some data withheld, contracts were redacted and a lot of money was made by these big companies.

I'm not saying the vaccines don't work at all, I think not every age group reaps the same benefits from them. For example Moderna was proven to cause heart issues in young men and got banned.

Before it was official that the vaccinated could spread the virus, they boarded planes and travelled with the green pass.
Imagine being vaccinated thinking you are protected, visiting your grandparents and passing the virus to them.

They didn't bother saying, oh, these will only work for 3 months meanwhile you can still spread it. What was circulated all over the media was something else entirely.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

See, this is what I'm talking about as one example:
This is just not true:
For example Moderna was proven to cause heart issues in young men and got banned.

It wasn't banned, there were rare occurrences of what was mild myocarditis that self resolved and the chance of having much more serious myocarditis is much higher with actual Covid infection.
For male children in particular the likelihood of myocarditis is 6 times higher with just Covid infection itself.
Vaccines actually have been found to help mitigate that. It was found that benefits far outweighed the rare occurrence and risk.

COVID-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines

The overall risk of myocarditis was higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than in the weeks after vaccination for the coronavirus, new research shows.

www.heart.org

Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis - PubMed

Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

newsGP - Vaccine and infection myocarditis risks contrasted

A new Immunisation Coalition chart illustrates the much higher myocarditis risks following COVID-19 infection compared to vaccination.

www1.racgp.org.au

New study updates evidence on rare heart condition after covid vaccination - BMJ Group

Number of cases low and predominantly mild Young males at highest risk shortly after second dose, suggesting longer dosing intervals might be beneficial Findings must be considered alongside overall benefits of vaccination A study published by The BMJ today provides an up to date summary of...

www.bmj.com

It's much more irresponsible and dangerous to leave the kids unprotected when all information is looked at equally.
People hear one thing, they don't know what it means and they don't know how to find out otherwise and voila, the fearmongering worked. It's more dangerous for those kids. It pisses me off because it's hard to combat all the misinfo. Lies and bullshit spread much faster. Those kids and their families pay an extremely high price. For whom, truly? That's the question.

The rest of what you've been told is misinterpreted too.