4 ms·
Not sure what I think of this. That Eli David guy seems to be a nutter. "A stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day", and his Twitter feed wants to ampl
by raffraffraff 5y ago
Not sure what I think of this. That Eli David guy seems to be a nutter. "A stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day", and his Twitter feed wants to amplify the times he's right, and ignore the rest.
Doing a tiny bit of scroll-back on Malone shows him to be roughly the same. While he did work on what would eventually become important science, back in the day, his claims to having invented the latter fruits of that labor are dubious.
Should he have been suspended? I dunno. I usually think that the best way to deal with nonsense is to expose it to the air, question its claims, look for evidence to back it up, and demand a high caliber of data. The problem with Twitter (all social media really) is that it's perfectly designed for daily, unending "soundbyte" battles that are all too insignificant to matter (except for the occasional one that turns into a pile-on, and someone gets fired - but that's never the actual result we should be looking for). Every day you get millions of Twits talking over each other, rarely requiring evidence, let alone use basic logic. It's like two clouds of insects coming at each other and doing battle in the air, with billions more hatching on the ground nearby. Pointless.
I know that Twitter can be useful, just like Reddit and maybe even Facebook. But it's not the place to have important discussions. It would be like trying to conduct an important trial with 1000 clowns in the court, cycling around on tiny bicycles and flinging custard pies left and right. Really, we should treat Twitter (and Reddit and Facebook) as the circuses that they are, and let anyone join and spout nonsense.
Maybe they should reinstate his account and then shut down the platform.
- peter_retief 5y agoThe concerning thing for me is not if Eli David/Malone is wrong or right or crazy but rather how selective the twitter suspensions are. I am from South Africa and we have some insane politicians who have repeatedly called for the murder of white people and they have never been suspended from Twitter. I am not going to post his name here because I dont want to give him oxygen.
- raffraffraff 5y agoLook, I know someone who got suspended for stating a simple, scientific fact that everybody knows is true, but is "unpopular" with woke types in 2021. There's a difference between stating a fact and being needlessly insulting, derogatory etc. This was 100% "stating a fact" but it got "called out" as a dogwgistle or something. This is the problem with censorship. Who's in charge? One can threaten "evil doers" and wish them all kinds of graphic harm, spout any lies you want as long as the censors identify with your tribe, or are afraid that disagreeing with your tribe will look like a "dogwhistle" for a great big sin.
- peter_retief 5y agoExactly, it is extremely divisive.
- barbarbar 5y agoOff topic. But the example with an important trial with 1000 clowns on tiny bicycles is just an extremely funny metaphor.
- bko 5y agoI don't like the moving goal posts in regards to disinformation especially about science. We've originally been told that we shouldn't consider to medical opinions of those that are not trained scientists. Fair enough. But you have someone credentialed that happens to say things that are critical of public policy, and suddenly he falls into that bucket. I would like an objective statement about what is and isn't allowed to be posted on a social media platform. It has to be equally applied to all. But it can't be "you're not allowed to say anything that could be seen to critique current public policy or [three letter organization]"
- raffraffraff 5y ago> We've originally been told that we shouldn't consider to medical opinions of those that are not trained scientists. Fair enough. I don't think it's fair enough. I like the Royal Society's motto: 'Nullius in verba' (meaning 'take nobody's word for it'). Look at the quality of the study, the data, and the statistical results instead of taking someone's word because they are "a scientist". I think that if a lay-person can use the Cochrane library, understand what they are reading, and retains a solid grasp of the meta-analysis of the trials, then I'll take their opinion on a subject as quickly as that of "some scientist" who has been pedaling debunked theories.
- mannanj 5y agoIf we don't have Twitter for a place to have important discussions, what do we have?