4 ms·

My Twitter feed is full of “There are only two genders. Test” And links to medical papers on myocarditis. Two things that would get you banned quick.

megaman821 4y ago
What people and/or topics do you follow to get these things? I follow things related to tech, economics and comics; and the ads seem to stay topical to those things.
notacoward 4y ago
Yeah, I'm seeing a big uptick in myocarditis stuff too. That's despite being very selective about who I follow; it's showing up in the replies. The disinfo crowd (not just on that topic) is off to an even quicker start than I expected. Just in time for the midterm elections, too. :(
- purpleblue 4y ago
  Myocarditis in young men below the age of 18 from the vaccine is real and verified. This was even shown by the CDC during the ACIP meeting for the bivalent booster. It's roughly about 1 in 5000 chance of getting myocarditis, and about 1/3 of the patients are still suffering from it 90 days after diagnosis.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    I'm sure it is real, but that's not the point. A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here. I'm seeing a lot of people citing the exact same highly-dubious articles, which takes us further from figuring out the empirical truth on a complex set of issues. Those citations are also often accompanied by other claims on other topics (or even simple abuse), also familiar but unrelated except for ideological affiliation. I'm not saying there's any kind of conspiracy - no coordination is required here - but there definitely seems to be a zeitgeist of people taking out pent-up frustration on their political opponents today. And it's clearly happening right here as well, though FWIW I don't consider your own comment to be part of that. You raised a perfectly valid point; others, not so much.
    - addingadimensio 4y ago
      censorship attenuates the truth to its true significance. -Some powerful newspeak there bud
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      If you're going to call something "disinfo," that thing should at a minimum be required to be untrue.
      - notacoward 4y ago
        Maybe you don't understand what disinformation is. It's not just about saying things that are factually untrue, because that's easily countered. More often it's about changing the interpretation or emphasis to promote a preferred narrative and/or create an illusion of popular support. Other times the goal is just to sow confusion or conflict. For example, consider how "good guy with a gun" incidents are covered by the media. Some would say they're inappropriately suppressed in mainstream news. Others would say they're inappropriately celebrated in niche news or entertainment. I'm not here to say which is right, but both could be considered disinformation. They're trying to shift the narrative toward an ideological position, regardless of actual truth or proportionality. So no, I don't agree that something must be untrue to be called disinformation. Presenting it that way is itself kind of treading the line.
        PubliusMI 4y ago
        There is a difference between an instance of an individual person sharing a true idea to convince others, and an organization which claims to report the news but selectively reports true news for propagandistic purposes.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      >I'm sure it is real, but that's not the point. Please don't deny The Science. You sound like an antivaxer. >A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here. So? If something is true who cares if a lot of people talk about it and like the content? It doesn't appear to be artificially inflated so it is just a lot of people talking about it.

megaman821 4y ago

What people and/or topics do you follow to get these things? I follow things related to tech, economics and comics; and the ads seem to stay topical to those things.

notacoward 4y ago

Yeah, I'm seeing a big uptick in myocarditis stuff too. That's despite being very selective about who I follow; it's showing up in the replies. The disinfo crowd (not just on that topic) is off to an even quicker start than I expected. Just in time for the midterm elections, too. :(

purpleblue 4y ago
Myocarditis in young men below the age of 18 from the vaccine is real and verified. This was even shown by the CDC during the ACIP meeting for the bivalent booster. It's roughly about 1 in 5000 chance of getting myocarditis, and about 1/3 of the patients are still suffering from it 90 days after diagnosis.
- notacoward 4y ago
  I'm sure it is real, but that's not the point. A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here. I'm seeing a lot of people citing the exact same highly-dubious articles, which takes us further from figuring out the empirical truth on a complex set of issues. Those citations are also often accompanied by other claims on other topics (or even simple abuse), also familiar but unrelated except for ideological affiliation. I'm not saying there's any kind of conspiracy - no coordination is required here - but there definitely seems to be a zeitgeist of people taking out pent-up frustration on their political opponents today. And it's clearly happening right here as well, though FWIW I don't consider your own comment to be part of that. You raised a perfectly valid point; others, not so much.
  - addingadimensio 4y ago
    censorship attenuates the truth to its true significance. -Some powerful newspeak there bud
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    If you're going to call something "disinfo," that thing should at a minimum be required to be untrue.
    - notacoward 4y ago
      Maybe you don't understand what disinformation is. It's not just about saying things that are factually untrue, because that's easily countered. More often it's about changing the interpretation or emphasis to promote a preferred narrative and/or create an illusion of popular support. Other times the goal is just to sow confusion or conflict. For example, consider how "good guy with a gun" incidents are covered by the media. Some would say they're inappropriately suppressed in mainstream news. Others would say they're inappropriately celebrated in niche news or entertainment. I'm not here to say which is right, but both could be considered disinformation. They're trying to shift the narrative toward an ideological position, regardless of actual truth or proportionality. So no, I don't agree that something must be untrue to be called disinformation. Presenting it that way is itself kind of treading the line.
      - PubliusMI 4y ago
        There is a difference between an instance of an individual person sharing a true idea to convince others, and an organization which claims to report the news but selectively reports true news for propagandistic purposes.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >I'm sure it is real, but that's not the point. Please don't deny The Science. You sound like an antivaxer. >A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here. So? If something is true who cares if a lot of people talk about it and like the content? It doesn't appear to be artificially inflated so it is just a lot of people talking about it.