Debates
30 Apr 22
@vivify saidPlease actually read the post. Please.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201218/covid-19-is-far-more-lethal-damaging-than-flu-data-shows
"COVID Far More Lethal Than Flu, Data Shows"
That's why it was suspended.
"Covid is a flu level risk to kids who aren’t vaccine-eligible"
Kids who aren't vaccine eligible are under 5 years old.
According to the article you cited:
"The average age of patients in both groups was 69."
I don't mean to pick on you. Anyone can make a mistake on a cursory first reading.
The problem is that the interns making the Twitter banning decisions are either extremely biased or just as inattentive.
@sh76 saidhttps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html#:~:text=Being%20immunocompromised%20can%20make%20you,to%20date%20on%20their%20vaccines.
Most immunocompromised people are not at high risk from COVID.
Being immunocompromised can make you more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 or be sick for a longer period of time
Then that's why your guy got banned.
@vivify saidCome on, viv. You're better than this.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html#:~:text=Being%20immunocompromised%20can%20make%20you,to%20date%20on%20their%20vaccines.
Being immunocompromised can make you more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 or be sick for a longer period of time
Then that's why your guy got banned.
Your quote from the CDC:
Being immunocompromised can make you more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 or be sick for a longer period of time
CAN. The word "can" means it's possible. Or maybe even that there is a substantial possibility. It does not mean that MOST people are at high risk. Assume that 20% of immunocompromised people are considered "high" risk while only 5% of not immunocompromised people are at "high" risk."
That would make both statements true. The CDC statement you quoted does not contradict Eli's post in any meaningful way.
Then, of course, there's the definition of "high." Your CDC quote says "more likely." Maybe "more likely" means 10% rather than 4%. Or 20% rather than 5%. Or whatever.
Maybe "high" means 30% or 40% or 51% (there's certainly a case to be made for the 51% ).
Then there's relative risk. The CDC quote says more likely to get "very sick" whereas perhaps Eli meant the risk of death ("risk" is used in many context to be measuring the chances of death). The CDC quote doesn't even mention the word "risk." "Very sick" could mean high fever or low oxygen or shortness or breath but full recovery.
Take a step back, viv.
Be honest.
Does the CDC quote you cited make the Eli quote worthy of a disinformation ban?
02 May 22
@moonbus saidLet us imagine an example. Some governments and their newspapers hide and censor the information that country A is committing war crimes and they publish only the information that country B is committing war crimes. A and B are in a war.
Someone asked for a definition. I gave one. Applying it in practise is another matter. I can also define "God"; that does not mean you can find God in practise or that failing to find God in practise invalidates the definition.
To say that this news is disinformation is sufficient to refer to the fact that the information from the other side has been entirely neglected. It is needless to know whether the disinformation was spread intentionally.
However, if the aim is to show that the spreaders of such misinformation are complicit in the war crimes and are trying to hide these crimes, one needs to show that it is an intentional policy.
02 May 22
@vivify said"I doubt that, because of how conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene were banned for using real sources in misleading ways."
I doubt that, because of how conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene were banned for using real sources in misleading ways.
Metal Brain, a conservative, posted an article that cited The Lancet, which had a study that clearly indicated it was not peer-reviewed and the research was only preliminary. Yet MB's article used it as a source to spread anti-vax propaganda.
Base ...[text shortened]... 't the articles that were banned but the misleading posts by conservatives regarding those sources.
You can doubt whatever you want, using your own ignorance and unwillingness to see the facts.
You even do not ask, what scientific papers exactly were taken down by Facebook.
Because you simply do not want to know.
@sh76 saidI looked up Eli Klein's tweets: he's a typical anti-mask-mandate Covid denier.
Come on, viv. You're better than this.
Your quote from the CDC:
Being immunocompromised can make you more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 or be sick for a longer period of time
CAN. The word "can" means it's possible. Or maybe even that there is a substantial possibility. It does not mean that MOST people are at high risk. Assume that 20% of immunoco ...[text shortened]... iv.
Be honest.
Does the CDC quote you cited make the Eli quote worthy of a disinformation ban?
In context, this non-medical doctor seems to be minimizing the danger of Covid.
You isolated ONE tweet without regard to his anti-mask mandate comments; that's dishonest. In Isolation, virtually any misinformation can be appear harmless; but that's a dishonest method of discussion, and something you should be ashamed of doing.
You posted an anti-mask-mandate Covid minimizer making a tweet minimizing the risk immunocompromised people have during a pandemic, and wonder why he was banned.
02 May 22
6 edits
@eintaluj saidShut the hell up.
"I doubt that, because of how conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene were banned for using real sources in misleading ways."
You can doubt whatever you want, using your own ignorance and unwillingness to see the facts.
You even do not ask, what scientific papers exactly were taken down by Facebook.
Because you simply do not want to know.
That topic was discussed extensively on this site well before you came along. My opinions are quite informed as these discussions require looking up and verifying facts. I did indeed look to see what was taken down by the social media sites in question during these discussions.
Regardless of what you think of me, one thing no one on this site can accuse me of is being someone who does "not ask" questions, like what information was blocked. Your dumb assumptions born from ignorance about me resulted in your quite foolish assessment.
@vivify saidThat's the Tweet that got him suspended. So, yes, that's the one that should be analyzed in this context.
I looked up Eli Klein's tweets: he's a typical anti-mask-mandate Covid denier.
In context, this non-medical doctor seems to be minimizing the danger of Covid.
You isolated ONE tweet without regard to his anti-mask mandate comments; that's dishonest. In Isolation, virtually any misinformation can be appear harmless; but that's a dishonest method of discussion, and somet ...[text shortened]... t minimizing the risk immunocompromised people have during a pandemic, and wonder why he was banned.
His posts take a position of course, but they are almost always factually unassailable (and he's quite pro-vax, incidentally).
Banning people from the platform because the Twitter powers-that-be don't like his general point of view is exactly what I'm accusing Twitter of. So, if you want to argue that this is what they should be doing, then that's fine. You're conceding my general point.
Edit: Let me ask you this. If I post on Twitter again and again "I don't like mask mandates. I think they do more harm than good." Should I be banned?
@sh76 saidThat's not how it works and you know that. Your question is about why he was banned from Twitter; so context is needed since Twitter bans are usually a result of multiple infractions.
That's the Tweet that got him suspended. So, yes, that's the one that should be analyzed in this context.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misinformation-policy
According to Twitter's guidelines, five or more strikes result in a ban; so this guy must have been in the habit of posting Covid misinformation.
If I post on Twitter again and again "I don't like mask mandates. I think they do more harm than good." Should I be banned?
You know damn well opinions aren't considered misinformation. That Klein post was made as if he was stating a fact, which is a completely different matter.
02 May 22
1 edit
@EintaluJ
I would LOVE to know which science papers were rejected by FB.
You do realize they know zip about science so it would be interesting to see their take on just why they did that if they actually did.
I rarely go on FB, seems like a huge waste of time but would like to check out this alleged suppression of science. Besides, what dif does it make if they were kicked off FB since a science paper belongs to a science journal.
Were these same papers rejected by some mainstream science pub?
My guess is those papers were some kind of snake oil crap, like use a horse dewormer to kill covid, which has been thoroughly shown to be BS by a LOT of science papers.
03 May 22
@vivify saidAs long as I am alive, I will never cease to tell the truth: Facebook banned even some scientific papers published in the best medical journals, just because the mandatory vaccination was criticized or Pfizer's experimental vaccine was criticized.
Shut the hell up.
That topic was discussed extensively on this site well before you came along. My opinions are quite informed as these discussions require looking up and verifying facts. I did indeed look to see what was taken down by the social media sites in question during these discussions.
Regardless of what you think of me, one thing no one on this site can ...[text shortened]... cked. Your dumb assumptions born from ignorance about me resulted in your quite foolish assessment.
03 May 22
@sonhouse saidFacebook has banned or covered several scientific papers from scientific journals (and also the articles of respectable scientists, the articles they published elsewhere because scientific journals did not publish them since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic).
@EintaluJ
I would LOVE to know which science papers were rejected by FB.
You do realize they know zip about science so it would be interesting to see their take on just why they did that if they actually did.
I rarely go on FB, seems like a huge waste of time but would like to check out this alleged suppression of science. Besides, what dif does it make if they were kicke ...[text shortened]... a horse dewormer to kill covid, which has been thoroughly shown to be BS by a LOT of science papers.
Always, when I have happened to study the reasons Facebook's "independent fact-checkers" provide to block some material, the provided reasons have been pure demagoguery (for example, the content of the article banned has been described incorrectly, etc.).
At the moment, I was able to find the following article Facebook did not allow to share, slandering that it is "false information":
"Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial"
The British Medical Journal, 02 November 2021.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2635
03 May 22
@vivify saidFine.
That's not how it works and you know that. Your question is about why he was banned from Twitter; so context is needed since Twitter bans are usually a result of multiple infractions.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misinformation-policy
According to Twitter's guidelines, five or more strikes result in a ban; so this guy must have been in the ha ...[text shortened]... tion. That Klein post was made as if he was stating a fact, which is a completely different matter.
"Mask mandates in schools do more harm than good."
Should I be banned from Twitter?
03 May 22
4 edits
@sh76 saidFirst of all, that's a statement that straddles the line between being an opinion and a statement of fact. With that in mind:
Fine.
"Mask mandates in schools do more harm than good."
Should I be banned from Twitter?
According to Twitter's disinformation policy, violations include tweets that "may be likely to impact public safety or cause serious harm".
So if such a statement is made by a person who could influence public actions, like a government official, Twitter may take that down since public safety may be affected by that tweet.
So in the interest of public safety, I wouldn't think it was unreasonable if they decided to remove your tweet, since masks in schools were in line with the CDC's recommendations:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html
03 May 22
@vivify saidHere is your sentence containing my quote: This is another example of an opinion: "everyone who goes to jail actually committed the crime they were convicted for". There are many examples where this is not the case, and possibly a lot more that weren't able to be proven as such
Because those examples are not "rare". In the U.S. there are at least three exonerations for wrongful convictions per week:
https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/
Now if you want to argue that three people found each week to be wrongfully covicted (and that's just the ones we know of) is still "rare" compared to the total number of convictions, that's a matter of opinion, ...[text shortened]... , if you were interested:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
A more fair quote and rebuttal would be as follows: This is another example of an opinion: "But other than very rare examples, everyone who goes to jail actually committed the crime they were convicted for." This happens more often than just a few "very rare examples"
What you did is distort the conversation. It may be a clever way to win debate points to impress other people, but it is not helpful for two people trying to have a conversation and improve mutual understanding. The wording I suggested relegates the disagreement to what we might actually disagree about and doesn't attribute to me arguments I never made.
Also, you say the examples are not "rare" because there are at least three exonerations per week. First of all, let me make the obvious observation so it doesn't sound like we're disagreeing on more than we are and so I don't get a condescending lecture about it. That observation is that if we're regularly finding false convictions, there are almost certainly more than are being found.
But for the main point of contention, I'd point out that in a country of 330 million people if there are 3 exonerations per week, one might understandably still use the words "very rare" when engaging in a very informal conversation and writing quickly. However, those are just words. The last thing I'm interested in is being in a debate "word-thinking" because ultimately we're just arguing about the definition of a word used in a RHP debate forum and not anything that actually matters pertaining to our justice system. Other than which word would apply, we may actually be in agreement on estimates about the actual numbers. I can think of nothing less productive than to argue about whether the words "very rare" fits in this case or not. If we decided we wanted to discuss that, we'd be much better off jumping to estimates of actual raw numbers and forgetting about definitions of English language adjectives.