3 ms·

The context is in the article, which that image is pulled from. The image itself directly contradicts your claim: "The people posting on Twitter are just riling

by jakear 4y ago

The context is in the article, which that image is pulled from. The image itself directly contradicts your claim: "The people posting on Twitter are just riling up, a virtual riot. You want to discuss it, do it calmy and write soemthing well thought out with sources", as an example of a well thought out, sourced, discussion that was nonetheless prohibited for not aligning with Central Authority's directives. My argument, as it has been this entire thread, is that the Government should not be pressuring companies to prohibit such discussions. Since you asked, I recommend you respond with a counterargument supporting the Governments prohibition of the linked content. That said, this is already too much beating of a dead thread for me. I don't expect to be able to convince you that the Government shouldn't be in control of how people are allowed to talk, and you certainly wont convince me of the opposite. Good day.

tayo42 4y ago
Where was the government involved? > Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, Which then was reviewed by some support staff. This is actually all in the article What you read is misinformation designed to muddy the water and get you riled up by making this look partisan. You and others are falling for it. This article is intentially being emotional like this.
- jakear 4y ago
  Do you think that bot magically sprung itself into existence? Or is it more likely that it was written by a human, as ordered by a human, in response to well-documented (also in the article) pressure from the White House to prohibit the spread of what they considered "misinformation"? Do you think the "support staff" were acting of their own volition, or did they have orders from above about how content should be handled? You don't need to answer this - the article shows they had a flow chart to follow, created by the same folks who were being pressured by the White House.
  - tayo42 4y ago
    dont make me quote the whole article back to you > Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, and that it received many “tattles” (what the system amusingly called reports from users). That triggered a manual review by a human who—despite the tweet showing actual CDC data—nevertheless labeled it “misleading.” The language this article uses is inflammatory. There's a few points to make here, that its highly emotional on purpose. The use of the word tattles, the '—despite the tweet showing actual CDC data—nevertheless' phrasing adding in biased commentary. Its also not totally clear, I think because its trying to create outrage, the review was triggered from the reports received. Which then just had some support staff label it. The initial reporting has nothing to do with government. And we don't know how the labeling works. This article makes a lot of leaps and dumps information. Im done with this now, I really think you should step back and ask your self, if you are getting caught up in partisan articles like this, how can you really cut through the information being thrown around about more complex topics. Apparently Kulldorff from this article went on to work in right wing politics after becoming a vocal anti lockdown and vaccine guy. I dont think he is an unbiased source.

by jakear 4y ago

tayo42 4y ago

Where was the government involved? > Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, Which then was reviewed by some support staff. This is actually all in the article What you read is misinformation designed to muddy the water and get you riled up by making this look partisan. You and others are falling for it. This article is intentially being emotional like this.

jakear 4y ago
Do you think that bot magically sprung itself into existence? Or is it more likely that it was written by a human, as ordered by a human, in response to well-documented (also in the article) pressure from the White House to prohibit the spread of what they considered "misinformation"? Do you think the "support staff" were acting of their own volition, or did they have orders from above about how content should be handled? You don't need to answer this - the article shows they had a flow chart to follow, created by the same folks who were being pressured by the White House.
- tayo42 4y ago
  dont make me quote the whole article back to you > Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, and that it received many “tattles” (what the system amusingly called reports from users). That triggered a manual review by a human who—despite the tweet showing actual CDC data—nevertheless labeled it “misleading.” The language this article uses is inflammatory. There's a few points to make here, that its highly emotional on purpose. The use of the word tattles, the '—despite the tweet showing actual CDC data—nevertheless' phrasing adding in biased commentary. Its also not totally clear, I think because its trying to create outrage, the review was triggered from the reports received. Which then just had some support staff label it. The initial reporting has nothing to do with government. And we don't know how the labeling works. This article makes a lot of leaps and dumps information. Im done with this now, I really think you should step back and ask your self, if you are getting caught up in partisan articles like this, how can you really cut through the information being thrown around about more complex topics. Apparently Kulldorff from this article went on to work in right wing politics after becoming a vocal anti lockdown and vaccine guy. I dont think he is an unbiased source.