3 ms·

A Infamous case was Twitter baning Zerohedge because of it. And all that Zerohedge did was point out a lot of public documents, nothing private, and no bioweap

A Infamous case was Twitter baning Zerohedge because of it. And all that Zerohedge did was point out a lot of public documents, nothing private, and no bioweapon theory. (Twitter claimed Zerohedge had doxxed the scientist, but Zerohedge only had shown the official lab website and documents from it). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-bans-zero-hedge-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-bans-zero-hedge-coronav...

neuronexmachina 5y ago
I think it's pretty obvious why they were banned: > The article, posted under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden" (the fictional character played by Brad Pitt in the movie "Fight Club"), was titled "Is This Man Behind The Global Coronavirus Pandemic?" It included a photograph of a scientist at Wuhan's Institute of Virology and suggested that anyone curious about the epidemic might want to pay him "a visit."
- thundergolfer 5y ago
  Thanks for calling that out. This is the only example I've been offered and it's exactly the kind of "talking about the lab-leak theory" that I suspected was less innocent than posed by OP.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  That quote of paying “a visit” makes the Zero Hedge article sound more sinister than it actually is. The full sentence from Zero Hedge’s article is: “Something tells us, if anyone wants to find out what really caused the coronavirus pandemic that has infected thousands of people in China and around the globe, they should probably pay Dr. Peng a visit.” I don’t see anything wrong with that statement. Peng was the publicly listed face of this research lab at WIV, and his name, photo, and contact info were openly displayed on the website as public facing content. Zero Hedge was banned because the possibility of a lab leak was politicized by those on the left, including tech companies who operate social media platforms, and they unfairly censored and banned this content because they were biased against Trump/Republicans to a point where legitimate speculation was disallowed.
undersuit 5y ago
Good revisionism there. The very first sentence they push the bioweapon theory. https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavirus-pandemic https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavir...
- speeder 5y ago
  Indeed, he mentioned "weaponized virus" on the article, I had forgotten that particular bit.
  - undersuit 5y ago
    It's been a long 16 months, mistakes happen, maybe I'm running a little low on empathy today too.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  That too was and still is legitimate speculation. Josh Rogin of the Washington Post has written about this previously (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin...): > A little-noticed study was released in early July 2020 by a group of Chinese researchers in Beijing, including several affiliated with the Academy of Military Medical Science. These scientists said they had created a new model for studying SARS-CoV-2 by creating mice with human-like lung characteristics by using the CRISPR gene-editing technology to give the mice lung cells with the human ACE2 receptor — the cell receptor that allowed coronaviruses to so easily infect human lungs. The fact remains that this type of speculation about bioweapons should never have been banned. Doing so granted the CCP a huge relief from accountability and transparency, one we may never be able to correct for with all the time that has passed.

neuronexmachina 5y ago

I think it's pretty obvious why they were banned: > The article, posted under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden" (the fictional character played by Brad Pitt in the movie "Fight Club"), was titled "Is This Man Behind The Global Coronavirus Pandemic?" It included a photograph of a scientist at Wuhan's Institute of Virology and suggested that anyone curious about the epidemic might want to pay him "a visit."

thundergolfer 5y ago
Thanks for calling that out. This is the only example I've been offered and it's exactly the kind of "talking about the lab-leak theory" that I suspected was less innocent than posed by OP.
throwawaysea 5y ago
That quote of paying “a visit” makes the Zero Hedge article sound more sinister than it actually is. The full sentence from Zero Hedge’s article is: “Something tells us, if anyone wants to find out what really caused the coronavirus pandemic that has infected thousands of people in China and around the globe, they should probably pay Dr. Peng a visit.” I don’t see anything wrong with that statement. Peng was the publicly listed face of this research lab at WIV, and his name, photo, and contact info were openly displayed on the website as public facing content. Zero Hedge was banned because the possibility of a lab leak was politicized by those on the left, including tech companies who operate social media platforms, and they unfairly censored and banned this content because they were biased against Trump/Republicans to a point where legitimate speculation was disallowed.

undersuit 5y ago

Good revisionism there. The very first sentence they push the bioweapon theory. https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavirus-pandemic https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavir...

speeder 5y ago
Indeed, he mentioned "weaponized virus" on the article, I had forgotten that particular bit.
- undersuit 5y ago
  It's been a long 16 months, mistakes happen, maybe I'm running a little low on empathy today too.
throwawaysea 5y ago
That too was and still is legitimate speculation. Josh Rogin of the Washington Post has written about this previously (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin...): > A little-noticed study was released in early July 2020 by a group of Chinese researchers in Beijing, including several affiliated with the Academy of Military Medical Science. These scientists said they had created a new model for studying SARS-CoV-2 by creating mice with human-like lung characteristics by using the CRISPR gene-editing technology to give the mice lung cells with the human ACE2 receptor — the cell receptor that allowed coronaviruses to so easily infect human lungs. The fact remains that this type of speculation about bioweapons should never have been banned. Doing so granted the CCP a huge relief from accountability and transparency, one we may never be able to correct for with all the time that has passed.