3 ms·

To anyone else without the context: - @mattyglesias posts this article on slowboring - @angie_rasmussen posts some pretty thoughtful responses [1]. - @Michae

To anyone else without the context: - @mattyglesias posts this article on slowboring - @angie_rasmussen posts some pretty thoughtful responses [1]. - @MichaelWorobey posts some more responses specifically with regard to the fact that there are A/B lineages [2]. - @mattyglesias publicly apologies [3] and says, and I quote: To me that discovery really does meaningfully detract from the plausibility of the lab leak story and I apologize — I simply missed this when it came out and failed to update my views. ...but, doesn't bother to update his article to say that, because that would you know, affect page views and stuff. So you know, you can take what you want from this, but it's pretty clear to me that this is click-bait. A good actor would update the article with the new information... but he hasn't done that, so we can only presume he's acting in completely bad faith with his apology, and is bluntly, just peddling conspiracy theories for page views. [1] - https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1499406198495272962 https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1499406198... [2] - https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/1499969388325212162 https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/14999693883... [3] - https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1499465032547061767 https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1499465032547...

johnny22 5y ago
i really appreciate seeing the context here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
platz 5y ago
The only thing that needed to be corrected was that there was another version of the virus in laos instead of hubei. The main points of the article still stand.
- wokwokwok 5y ago
  I’m in no way arguing that point. That point has been carefully argued by other people. What I’m saying is that when you’re wrong (and he was) and you apologise (and he did) then don’t leave your (wrong) article up there encouraging other people to take up the same (wrong) views that you previously had. That’s acting in bad faith. I don’t care what you believe; believe whatever you think is appropriate. …but he said that he thinks that his own article is wrong. If you think that the article is right under those circumstances, perhaps consider: You’re being suckered by a lazy click bait article. (Not convinced? Actually go and read those Twitter threads I posted. It’s pretty damning. Wtf, “the NYT made this diagram that shows…” <— nope, that was from the paper, he was just being lazy and didn’t read it before writing an article about it. It’s just click bait to rile people up and get page views with random plausible but unsubstantiated crap)

johnny22 5y ago

i really appreciate seeing the context here.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

platz 5y ago

The only thing that needed to be corrected was that there was another version of the virus in laos instead of hubei. The main points of the article still stand.

wokwokwok 5y ago
I’m in no way arguing that point. That point has been carefully argued by other people. What I’m saying is that when you’re wrong (and he was) and you apologise (and he did) then don’t leave your (wrong) article up there encouraging other people to take up the same (wrong) views that you previously had. That’s acting in bad faith. I don’t care what you believe; believe whatever you think is appropriate. …but he said that he thinks that his own article is wrong. If you think that the article is right under those circumstances, perhaps consider: You’re being suckered by a lazy click bait article. (Not convinced? Actually go and read those Twitter threads I posted. It’s pretty damning. Wtf, “the NYT made this diagram that shows…” <— nope, that was from the paper, he was just being lazy and didn’t read it before writing an article about it. It’s just click bait to rile people up and get page views with random plausible but unsubstantiated crap)