2 ms·

Simple falsehood doesn't appear to be against the rules either, only deliberate lies/manipulated media are. > We can't draw any strong conclusions without know

Simple falsehood doesn't appear to be against the rules either, only deliberate lies/manipulated media are. > We can't draw any strong conclusions without knowing the actual post that resulted in the ban. We don't know what the post in question is, because Twitter is not transparent and shadowbans people without telling them why. With no evidence to the contrary, we should presume Dr. Bhattacharya innocent.

godelski 4y ago
> Simple falsehood doesn't appear to be against the rules either, only deliberate lies/manipulated media are. So Twitter made this claim. FP didn't deny it either fwiw. > With no evidence to the contrary, we should presume Dr. Bhattacharya innocent. While I'm a big fan of Blackstone's Ratio you need to recognize that I am not accusing him of anything. He's not on trial here, the FP is. My claim is that these Twitter Files are propagating controversy without providing any substantial evidence. Dr. Bhattacharya is only part of this conversation because YetAnotherNick claimed that the post about him was direct evidence of manipulation. Which, if you read back, I said that this sample is not informative since we do not know what led to the ban. Without that evidence we don't know if Twitter acted in good faith or not. Again, Dr. Bhattacharya is not on trial. Proof of his innocence would help The FP's argument, so why are they hiding it? The same is true for __every single one of the samples given__. We have ZERO information about the content that was posted that led to the actual down-weighting and bans. Because this information is being _intentionally_ hidden from us we must be suspicious of The FP's motives here. If you visit their website I'm sure you'll find a bias that strongly correlates with the claims they are making here: Twitter devalues right wing voices. Problem is, the claim still has no evidence. Just correlations. But these are not the same thing and that's why people are fighting in the comments. There is absolutely no information given that can allow us to draw accurate _causal_ solutions. Don't confuse criticism with political hackery.

godelski 4y ago

> Simple falsehood doesn't appear to be against the rules either, only deliberate lies/manipulated media are. So Twitter made this claim. FP didn't deny it either fwiw. > With no evidence to the contrary, we should presume Dr. Bhattacharya innocent. While I'm a big fan of Blackstone's Ratio you need to recognize that I am not accusing him of anything. He's not on trial here, the FP is. My claim is that these Twitter Files are propagating controversy without providing any substantial evidence. Dr. Bhattacharya is only part of this conversation because YetAnotherNick claimed that the post about him was direct evidence of manipulation. Which, if you read back, I said that this sample is not informative since we do not know what led to the ban. Without that evidence we don't know if Twitter acted in good faith or not. Again, Dr. Bhattacharya is not on trial. Proof of his innocence would help The FP's argument, so why are they hiding it? The same is true for __every single one of the samples given__. We have ZERO information about the content that was posted that led to the actual down-weighting and bans. Because this information is being _intentionally_ hidden from us we must be suspicious of The FP's motives here. If you visit their website I'm sure you'll find a bias that strongly correlates with the claims they are making here: Twitter devalues right wing voices. Problem is, the claim still has no evidence. Just correlations. But these are not the same thing and that's why people are fighting in the comments. There is absolutely no information given that can allow us to draw accurate _causal_ solutions. Don't confuse criticism with political hackery.