4 ms·
A catalog would be quite a tall order, because the numbers are huge. A reduction of scope would be pragmatic. You could start by searching out all of the medica
by stcredzero 6y ago
A catalog would be quite a tall order, because the numbers are huge. A reduction of scope would be pragmatic. You could start by searching out all of the medical experts who were censored for talking about Hydroxychloroquine. Not necessarily for advocacy, but just for reporting on it. There are even instances of medical academic papers which were censored off of Twitter for linking the PDF to the paper.
You could also do a survey of people talking about censorship and deplatforming just on YouTube, particularly when complaining about YouTube's capriciousness with regards to rules, policies, and terms of service.
It will be never ending!
- jfengel 6y agoIf you want to make a case that it's a persistent and pervasive problem, you'd do best by not starting with an exceptional case. Not only is it too recent to really make a case for it being common, but the straightforward reply will always be that it was an emergency situation during a pandemic and therefore subject to factors other than the claimed political bias. Making a case for a pervasive bias is going to require a lot of data, because any kind of intuitive "But they're against me!" claim is going to be subject to all lot of well-known cognitive biases. All numbers involving social media are large, so simply claiming that "the numbers are huge" doesn't make for a very compelling case, either. So if you want to get people interested in your argument, you should start gathering those numbers so you can make a more informative case than the one that leaps to the forefront of your mind.