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 syst

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.