For wildgrass - Twitter censorship examples

https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/suspended-twitter-accounts#why-might-Twitter-account-suspended

We may suspend an account if it has been reported to us as violating our Twitter Rules surrounding abuse. When an account engages in abusive behavior, like sending threats to others or impersonating other accounts, we may suspend it temporarily or, in some cases, permanently.
Note: In addition to showing Account suspended on a Twitter profile, we may add more details around why an account has been suspended.

I didn’t see any such details for C19C:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Covid19Crusher

@sh76 said
Covid19Crusher Tweeted several times a day for years. If he mistakenly included a few quotes that turned out to be false, banning him for that is crazy.

Twitter only does this to people on one side of the political spectrum. They don't ban the "doctors" who claim COVID has a 10% mortality rate (I got into a Twight with a quack who was screaming that from the rooftops) or cut ...[text shortened]... like.

I'm not saying Twitter doesn't have the RIGHT to do this. But my point is that they do it.

Maybe right wingers just aren’t alerting left wing posts.

@wildgrass said
I hate defending twitter because it's a terrible place. But, if Republicans who love to talk about civility and a return to common decency suddenly find themselves flagged by an internet algorithm -- what should an unbiased automaton -- is finding your comments on their platform are questionable, maybe some deep (or even shallow) introspection as to why is in order.

It's not just an algorithm or unbiased automaton. Twitter's shaddowbannings, deletions, follower-cuts and outright bannings are clearly viewpoint-based.

@athousandyoung said
[quote] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/notices-on-twitter

Permanent suspension: This is our most severe enforcement action. Permanently suspending an account will remove it from view, and the violator will not be allowed to create new accounts. When we permanently suspend an account, we notify people that they have been suspended for abuse violations ...[text shortened]... a reason though perhaps not publicly. Has C19C spoken since this suspension on some other platform?

I don't know. I'm not on Parler and all these other right wing alternatives. I go where I'm likely to learn the most from the greatest number of knowledgeable people. I just wish Twitter would stop making viewpoint-based editorial decisions or they're going to eventually just create a giant echo chamber.

@vivify said
Here's a web-cached tweet from Covid Crushers:

https://tinyurl.com/CovidCrusherTwitter

In that link, they're spreading Ivermectin misinformation. And this one below, they promoted debunked hydroxychloroquine claims.

https://tinyurl.com/CovidCrusherHydroxychloroquine

So they were banned for the usual right-wing idiocy.

https://tinyurl.com/CovidCrusherTwitter

Read the whole page and then tell me with a straight face that he should be banned from social media.

Keep in mind that essentially every Tweet has a linked source that is not visible on that page.

Edit: You're also cherry-picking. When IVM had negative results in studies, he posted those as well. He was quite balanced, actually. In fact, I was quite annoyed with him in December when I thought he was being even a bit alarmist about Omicron.

@sh76 said
It's not just an algorithm or unbiased automaton. Twitter's shaddowbannings, deletions, follower-cuts and outright bannings are clearly viewpoint-based.

Sheesh. Here I go again defending a platform that I hate.

Not all of it is an algorithm, but some of it is.

Clearly viewpoint-based, if the viewpoint is demonstrably false.

Your argument of Twitter only banning right-wing accounts is false.

@sh76 said
I don't know. I'm not on Parler and all these other right wing alternatives. I go where I'm likely to learn the most from the greatest number of knowledgeable people. I just wish Twitter would stop making viewpoint-based editorial decisions or they're going to eventually just create a giant echo chamber.

I wonder what it says that you are observing left wing bias in the same place as where you go to find the greatest number of knowledgeable people.

@athousandyoung said
I wonder what it says that you are observing left wing bias in the same place as where you go to find the greatest number of knowledgeable people.

Is it news to you that most of the major media companies are run by Leftist sympathizers?

@sh76 said
https://tinyurl.com/CovidCrusherTwitter

Read the whole page and then tell me with a straight face that he should be banned from social media.

Absolutely.

The problem is not merely that multiple government agencies, in addition to the WHO, have already studied and advised against it, but (more importantly) ivermectin is being pushed as an alternative to vaccines. That's the heart of the issue.

The reason why people Metal Brain, Joe Rogan, et al., keep pushing Ivermectin; they're anti-vaxers using it as an excuse to not get vaccinated.

While I find no mention of vaccines on Covid Crusher's Twitter page, that's also the problem. His very first source listed (Zenodo) says vaccines "currently offer the best hopes for pandemic control". Why isn't he explicitly posting that? Misinformation also works by deliberate omission

Edit: You're also cherry-picking. When IVM had negative results in studies, he posted those as well.

a) I didn't cherry-pick, I just picked the first results found on Google

b) You're not being honest. Most people don't go to a platform where the max character limit is 240 letters, to read exhaustive studies. Twitter is for quick reads or soundbites. As such, this guy makes no mention that vaccines are the best choice, he focuses exclusively on promoting ivermectin. He's likely hoping that people will just read the title of the study and move on to the next tweet.

That guy absolutely deserved to be banned.

@vivify said
Absolutely.

The problem is not merely that multiple government agencies, in addition to the WHO, have already studied and advised against it, but (more importantly) ivermectin is being pushed as an alternative to vaccines. That's the heart of the issue.

The reason why people Metal Brain, Joe Rogan, et al., keep pushing Ivermectin; they're anti-vaxers using it as an ex ...[text shortened]... he title of the study and move on to the next tweet.

That guy absolutely deserved to be banned.

It's mind-boggling that an otherwise reasonable person would think that the best way to deal with a person whose viewpoint you disagree with but who posts links to support virtually everything he says, is to silence him.

@sh76 said
It's mind-boggling that an otherwise reasonable person would think that the best way to deal with a person whose viewpoint you disagree with but who posts links to support virtually everything he says, is to silence him.

You need to stop reframing Covid misinformation as merely a differing viewpoint.

Covid misinformation can and has lead to death. One famous example: a couple was hospitalized after hearing Trump promote hydroxychloroquine and the husband died.

See this thread discussing Brazil, which was unfortunately duped by ivermectin falsehoods:

Thread 4493608

From the article in that thread:

Brazilians now want vaccines, not more ivermectin

Like I told you: ivermectin is being pushed by anti-vaxxers as part of a larger misinformation campaign. This isn't about mere "disagreement" like debating gay marriage; it's about banning propaganda that leads to death.

@athousandyoung said
I wonder what it says that you are observing left wing bias in the same place as where you go to find the greatest number of knowledgeable people.

lol well said. This correlation may be meaningful. The central argument that banning accounts spreading ivermectin misinformation is somehow left wing bias. This is definitely saying something about the allowable knowledge on the right.

@wildgrass said
I think you undermine your point by saying the account "tweeted several times a day for years" because during all that time, tweeting nonsense misinformation, they weren't banned. Something else besides the ivermectin falsehoods must have violated twitters terms of service. I don't know what that was.

Plenty of ivermectin-pushing accounts still exist on twitter if you wa ...[text shortened]... -report-finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/22/twitter-algorithm-right-leaning/

The WP said covid vaccines do not prevent spread. Why didn't they get banned? They banned other people for saying that on youtube. Not sure about Twitter, but it would not surprise me if they did it too.

https://rumble.com/vv5aje-natural-immunity-to-covid-works-washington-post-admits.html

Is Bezos getting special treatment while others are being banned for it? Sure looks like it.

@vivify said
You need to stop reframing Covid misinformation as merely a differing viewpoint.

Covid misinformation can and has lead to death. One famous example: a couple was hospitalized after hearing Trump promote hydroxychloroquine and the husband died.

See this thread discussing Brazil, which was unfortunately duped by ivermectin falsehoods:

Thread 4493608
...[text shortened]... t mere "disagreement" like debating gay marriage; it's about banning propaganda that leads to death.

Eating peanuts and aspirin has lead to death. Stop being a drama queen. Stupid people die from all sorts of things. Does that make the drug they overdosed on bad?
Ivemectin is safer than Tylenol.

@sh76 said
Is it news to you that most of the major media companies are run by Leftist sympathizers?

...yes?

You think the Scum and the Daily Heil are left-wing?

The Netherlands' largest populist newspaper, De Telegraaf (a rotten rag whose ink comes off on your hands) used to be literally Nazi. Not "I think they're too right wing" "Nazi", actual collaborators during WWII.

Of course, to you, they might well still count as left-wing.