7 ms·

"Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Tr

"Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending." What. Why?

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
Well, first of all, “tweets” don’t “trend”. Terms do. So this description feels off, already. Next, I wonder, but don’t care enough to look it up, if this guy is adequately summarized by only mentioning his concern for children? Screw that, I did look him up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pa.... He was one of the people behind the “Great” Barrington Declaration and, kn the early months of the pandemic, argued, among other things, that COVID is rather harmless. He also took money from the airline industry without disclosing as much in his publications. It’s arguable if Bhattacharya’s reach needed to be limited. What’s really hard to argue is that the thing about children is an adequate characterization of his statements during the pandemic. This is prime evidence that this story is not presenting anything close to a fair interpretation of the documents they have been given, and that you have, unfortunately, fallen for it.
- scifibestfi 4y ago
  He's a Dr. and a Stanford professor of medicine. The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors. They were warning about the harm lockdowns would do to kids and they were correct. Even if they weren't, this would still be unacceptable.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
    As I said, it’s debatable if the guy’s reach needed to be limited, the point you are arguing. What’s not debatable is that the breathless outrage-bait under discussion misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach with a straw-man argument, and so did you.
    - indoclay 4y ago
      > misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach Could you help me understand what the argument is that this person should have been put on any form of blacklist?
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    According to its own website, the great barrington declaration was signed by around 15,000 doctors.
    - scifibestfi 4y ago
      Thanks. I didn't realize there was a further breakdown from the 934,094 total and can't edit it now. Here's the exact breakdown. medical & public health scientists: 15,989 medical practitioners: 47,278 concerned citizens: 870,827
      - neuronexmachina 4y ago
        FYI, anybody who wants to can sign the "Great Barrington Declaration," and check whatever box they want: https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign The list of medical practitioners and scientists includes a number of homeopaths and obvious fake names.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors You're off by an order of magnitude and then some. Also, none of the numbers they do claim are verifiable. https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ You know, when you make a specific claim like that it's really worth the 30 seconds it takes to check it again to verify your memory is correct.
  - philjohn 4y ago
    Sounds like appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      Exactly, you can't trust any authority (Twitter moderation team included) to determine truth for you.
- sergiotapia 4y ago
  All of that is irrelevant. Twitter had a secret blacklist. Gross behavior from a gross company.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
    A “secret blacklist” that’s been known forever, or at least for two years: https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t=pYXrm6GNUDU_kv9QmDoxhg https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t...
    - veec_cas_tant 4y ago
      Here is an announcement from 2018[0]: >“It’s shaping up to be one of the highest-impact things that we’ve done,” the chief executive, Jack Dorsey ,said of the update, which will change how tweets appear in search results or conversations. “The spirit of the thing is that we want to take the burden off the person receiving abuse or mob-like behavior.” > The new system will use behavioral signals to assess whether a Twitter account is adding to – or detracting from – the tenor of conversations... > The updated algorithm will result in certain tweets being pushed further down in a list of search results or replies, but will not delete them from the platform. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/15/twitter-ranking-algorithm-change-trolling-harassment-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/15/twitter-r...
      - rhaksw 4y ago
        IMO that's fine, but if you want me to trust such a system, the author should see on their tweet some indication that it's been demoted.
      - jdminhbg 4y ago
        > The updated algorithm will result These screenshots are about actions taken by Twitter employees, not an updated algorithm.
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      ... and I've worked on Reveddit for four years. Less than 1% of Redditors know that all removed comments are secretly removed. It's hard to make people care about this stuff. Most of us only start to see the harm of something when it's shown in context. Just showing that something can be theoretically harmful isn't enough.
- yucky 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - etchalon 4y ago
    There was data to suggest that. The data that suggested that was linked in the article you posted: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
    - yucky 4y ago
      From your link "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization" Does 90% equal 100% now? Her statement was false, even based on the limited data set you're referencing. It's even more false now.
      - etchalon 4y ago
        People sometimes speak in hyperbole as a point of emphasis. Behold, humanity.
        yucky 4y ago
        If we can now expect the leading health experts in the world to be potentially speaking in hyperbole, then we can't expect the public to trust what they say to be accurate. That's a problem.
        etchalon 4y ago
        If you take someone casually rounding up from 90% to 100% as a deep reason for concern, I have some bad news for you regarding weather forecasts.
        yucky 4y ago
        No expert in any field would tell you that "casually rounding from 90% to 100%" should ever be done in any serious setting. Ever. Idiots on the Internet are free to do so, but not the Director of the CDC or the US President. That gets people killed.
scifibestfi 4y ago
"Still trying to process my emotions on learning that @twitter blacklisted me. The thought that will keep me up tonight: censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures & a generation of children were hurt." https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1601037983779389440 https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/16010379837793894...
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Is this an answer to GP's question? If so, I'm having trouble figuring out what it is.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    He was blacklisted due to his opposition to school closures and other intrusive NPI's during the pandemic.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ajvs 4y ago
    So instead it's better to stunt children's development with lockdowns and give them early heart attacks with jabs? Regardless of yours or my position however, this debate shouldn't have been censored in the first place.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      People had pointed out how stupid his proposal was when he made it, and he ignored them completely. At that point, he was just a crank (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/jlockdowns/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/jlockdowns/). The debate was never censored: he was allowed to communicate with policy makers if he had any evidence to support his proposal. What was censored (or rather, not promoted to people who weren't his followers) was his wild rants to fellow Christian libertarians who believe the invisible hand of the free market is the gentle hand of the baby Jesus himself, which we should not shackle with regulations. Slowing some children's development (while drastically accelerating others' because they were tutored by their parents who had to stay at home with them) is not even on the same scale as mass deaths and people dying outside hospitals due to lack of capacity.

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago

Well, first of all, “tweets” don’t “trend”. Terms do. So this description feels off, already. Next, I wonder, but don’t care enough to look it up, if this guy is adequately summarized by only mentioning his concern for children? Screw that, I did look him up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pa.... He was one of the people behind the “Great” Barrington Declaration and, kn the early months of the pandemic, argued, among other things, that COVID is rather harmless. He also took money from the airline industry without disclosing as much in his publications. It’s arguable if Bhattacharya’s reach needed to be limited. What’s really hard to argue is that the thing about children is an adequate characterization of his statements during the pandemic. This is prime evidence that this story is not presenting anything close to a fair interpretation of the documents they have been given, and that you have, unfortunately, fallen for it.

scifibestfi 4y ago
He's a Dr. and a Stanford professor of medicine. The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors. They were warning about the harm lockdowns would do to kids and they were correct. Even if they weren't, this would still be unacceptable.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  As I said, it’s debatable if the guy’s reach needed to be limited, the point you are arguing. What’s not debatable is that the breathless outrage-bait under discussion misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach with a straw-man argument, and so did you.
  - indoclay 4y ago
    > misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach Could you help me understand what the argument is that this person should have been put on any form of blacklist?
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  According to its own website, the great barrington declaration was signed by around 15,000 doctors.
  - scifibestfi 4y ago
    Thanks. I didn't realize there was a further breakdown from the 934,094 total and can't edit it now. Here's the exact breakdown. medical & public health scientists: 15,989 medical practitioners: 47,278 concerned citizens: 870,827
    - neuronexmachina 4y ago
      FYI, anybody who wants to can sign the "Great Barrington Declaration," and check whatever box they want: https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign https://gbdeclaration.org/#sign The list of medical practitioners and scientists includes a number of homeopaths and obvious fake names.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors You're off by an order of magnitude and then some. Also, none of the numbers they do claim are verifiable. https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ You know, when you make a specific claim like that it's really worth the 30 seconds it takes to check it again to verify your memory is correct.
- philjohn 4y ago
  Sounds like appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    Exactly, you can't trust any authority (Twitter moderation team included) to determine truth for you.
sergiotapia 4y ago
All of that is irrelevant. Twitter had a secret blacklist. Gross behavior from a gross company.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  A “secret blacklist” that’s been known forever, or at least for two years: https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t=pYXrm6GNUDU_kv9QmDoxhg https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t...
  - veec_cas_tant 4y ago
    Here is an announcement from 2018[0]: >“It’s shaping up to be one of the highest-impact things that we’ve done,” the chief executive, Jack Dorsey ,said of the update, which will change how tweets appear in search results or conversations. “The spirit of the thing is that we want to take the burden off the person receiving abuse or mob-like behavior.” > The new system will use behavioral signals to assess whether a Twitter account is adding to – or detracting from – the tenor of conversations... > The updated algorithm will result in certain tweets being pushed further down in a list of search results or replies, but will not delete them from the platform. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/15/twitter-ranking-algorithm-change-trolling-harassment-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/15/twitter-r...
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      IMO that's fine, but if you want me to trust such a system, the author should see on their tweet some indication that it's been demoted.
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      > The updated algorithm will result These screenshots are about actions taken by Twitter employees, not an updated algorithm.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    ... and I've worked on Reveddit for four years. Less than 1% of Redditors know that all removed comments are secretly removed. It's hard to make people care about this stuff. Most of us only start to see the harm of something when it's shown in context. Just showing that something can be theoretically harmful isn't enough.
yucky 4y ago
[flagged]
- etchalon 4y ago
  There was data to suggest that. The data that suggested that was linked in the article you posted: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
  - yucky 4y ago
    From your link "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization" Does 90% equal 100% now? Her statement was false, even based on the limited data set you're referencing. It's even more false now.
    - etchalon 4y ago
      People sometimes speak in hyperbole as a point of emphasis. Behold, humanity.
      - yucky 4y ago
        If we can now expect the leading health experts in the world to be potentially speaking in hyperbole, then we can't expect the public to trust what they say to be accurate. That's a problem.
        etchalon 4y ago
        If you take someone casually rounding up from 90% to 100% as a deep reason for concern, I have some bad news for you regarding weather forecasts.
        yucky 4y ago
        No expert in any field would tell you that "casually rounding from 90% to 100%" should ever be done in any serious setting. Ever. Idiots on the Internet are free to do so, but not the Director of the CDC or the US President. That gets people killed.

scifibestfi 4y ago

"Still trying to process my emotions on learning that @twitter blacklisted me. The thought that will keep me up tonight: censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures & a generation of children were hurt." https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1601037983779389440 https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/16010379837793894...

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Is this an answer to GP's question? If so, I'm having trouble figuring out what it is.
- philwelch 4y ago
  He was blacklisted due to his opposition to school closures and other intrusive NPI's during the pandemic.
lern_too_spel 4y ago
[flagged]
- ajvs 4y ago
  So instead it's better to stunt children's development with lockdowns and give them early heart attacks with jabs? Regardless of yours or my position however, this debate shouldn't have been censored in the first place.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    People had pointed out how stupid his proposal was when he made it, and he ignored them completely. At that point, he was just a crank (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/jlockdowns/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/jlockdowns/). The debate was never censored: he was allowed to communicate with policy makers if he had any evidence to support his proposal. What was censored (or rather, not promoted to people who weren't his followers) was his wild rants to fellow Christian libertarians who believe the invisible hand of the free market is the gentle hand of the baby Jesus himself, which we should not shackle with regulations. Slowing some children's development (while drastically accelerating others' because they were tutored by their parents who had to stay at home with them) is not even on the same scale as mass deaths and people dying outside hospitals due to lack of capacity.