Twitter ends enforcement of COVID misinformation policy…
Is this a problem?
If Twitter goes way I may have to kill myself. 
1 Like
It’s a good thing. It was always a well-meaning, but counterproductive policy.
Not a good thing.
There is already too much misinformation around.
Twitter can decide to be responsible about covid information, but instead, they are bowing to certain politics.
1 Like
Nah. Censoring information is the cause the massive distrust, which makes the misinformation seem more credible. Had they just let people hear it all, the crap would have been shown to be crap, and the good stuff would have risen to the top.
1 Like
The last six years of American history has disproven your premise. The proof is easily seen in the number of covid deaths of people who were not vaccinated vs the ones who were.
1 Like
A Twitter substitute where you could edit posts would be fantastic… Oh, that would be Google Plus! That was a wonderful platform. I loved it. So disappointed when Google took it down.
But that was caused, at least in part, by the fact that places like twitter did not permit any questioning of the official narrative. A large group of people don’t believe it because they perceive that the only way that narrative stands is by suppressing dissenting views.
The information published by reputable sources, ie: official, is not a “narrative,” it is a report based on provable factual information that can be verified. For public consumption it is often presented with a descriptive essay to explain technical details, jargon, etc.
A narrative is typically a story about a personal experience, opinion, idea or theory and allows the writer a lot of editorial freedom. It is often the tool of irresponsible bad actors as well as dangerous foreign adversaries looking to do harm to our country.
To use the descriptor “narrative” in the context of a factual public health report is to do the bad guys a favor and to do the people trying to do the right thing for us a disservice. It is in fact an example of misinformation itself.
1 Like
If official sources were never wrong, then perhaps never questioning them could be the right choice. But to call those people questioning the official sources “the bad guys,” and the official sources simply “people trying to do the right thing” (even if they are trying to do the right thing) just shuts down opposing views and discussion. Some people are turned off by this and wonder why the official sources can’t seem to stand up to scrutiny without name-calling and censorship.
The flaw in your argument lies in the collateral damage wrought by the process you evidently see as a harmless exercise of the right of free speech.
Some unknown person can present a totally fabricated story to debase sound facts based on real valid data that large numbers of people depend on to make life and death decisions. Those hair-brained ideas are then picked up by others who then amplify them to do even more damage.
What you are implying is that yelling “FIRE…FIRE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES” in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, is OK… it is not OK.
And elevating some fruitcake with an addled brain to the same level of volume, accuracy and authenticity as the spokesperson for WHO or the CDC is not good for you, me, or the global population.
1 Like
No one should ever expect that every report will be completely flawless…even the best of us make mistakes at times. But we should expect that the information provided is the best available at the time of the report. However, when later information is added in that contradicts some portion of an earlier report, far too many folks jump in to say “they were lying!” rather than simply acknowledging that there is new imformation tgat shifts the perspective.
1 Like
Nothing could be further from my point of view.
Then why did you write this:
“If official sources were never wrong, then perhaps never questioning them could be the right choice. But to call those people questioning the official sources “the bad guys,” and the official sources simply “people trying to do the right thing” (even if they are trying to do the right thing) just shuts down opposing views and discussion. Some people are turned off by this and wonder why the official sources can’t seem to stand up to scrutiny without name-calling and censorship.”
It is a proven fact that the enemies of America are among the leading purveyors of the misinformation and leverage the venue you are supporting.
You are elevating the criticism, by unknown, questionable and unproven sources, to the same level of the valid and potentially life-saving advice given by legitimate institutions.
If that is not the case then perhaps you could better focus your POV for us.
1 Like
Who are they?
China, Iran and Russia, among others.
Fully agree, but related to Musk and Twitter?
If Musk does what he says he’s going to do, restore thousands of previously banned Twitter accounts, it will undoubtedly include a lot bad actors. And those bad actors have few if anyone from Twitter checking on their activities. Our foreign adversaries are skilled at what they do.
Politico reported: “Elon Musk on Thursday announced a policy change for Twitter in which only accounts that are pushing spam or breaking the law will remain banned.”
I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s certainly better than banning anyone who does not like what someone posted because of their politics.
I don’t use Twitter so don’t know much about it, but it seems like free speech should be a cornerstone to social media.
If someone in a crowded theater yelled FIRE! FIRE! as a joke and 5 people were trampled to death trying to escape the building, would you be OK with that? What if one of the victims was your grandchild?
It’s very much the same thing. That’s why newspapers can be held liable for irresponsible reporting. Twitter posters and owners are not held to he same standard. It’s easy to be anonymous on Twitter.