7 ms·

"Why does a government has to "lean" on a private media company in a "democrat" and "liberal" democracy?" There are people within the government whose job it w

"Why does a government has to "lean" on a private media company in a "democrat" and "liberal" democracy?" There are people within the government whose job it was to respond to the covid pandemic. Part of that response involved educating the public about the disease and best practices related to it, which therefore included fighting misinformation. Misinformation is spread on platforms such as Twitter, so it made sense for the government to communicate with Twitter and let them know what it considered to be a good course of action. Do you disagree with this explanation?

leereeves 4y ago
Who gave them the mandate to control information about Covid? Trump was president at the time and he certainly didn't. And even granting, for the sake of argument, that someone within the government had that job, suppressing disagreement and debate is not the right way to do it.
- int_19h 4y ago
  From the article: "Internal emails that I viewed at Twitter showed that both the Trump and Biden administrations directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s content according to their wishes. At the onset of the pandemic, the Trump administration was especially concerned about panic buying, and sought “help from the tech companies to combat misinformation,” according to emails sent by Twitter employees in the wake of meetings with the White House. One area of so-called misinformation: “runs on grocery stores.” The trouble is that it wasn't misinformation: There actually were runs on goods. "
  - leereeves 4y ago
    And Trump was wrong to do that, but please note that I was replying to: > There are people within the government whose job it was to respond to the covid pandemic. Part of that response involved educating the public about the disease and best practices related to it, which therefore included fighting misinformation. It wasn't Trump pushing Twitter to ban anything that disagreed with the CDC's official position, and Trump separately pushing to ban misinformation about panic buying doesn't justify it.
cudgy 4y ago
> … which therefore included fighting misinformation. I fail to see how this conclusion is automatic or helpful in action. Educating people and providing best practices is harmed by taking direct action to shut down criticism and debate.
ajvs 4y ago
> Misinformation is spread on platforms such as Twitter, so it made sense for the government to communicate with Twitter and let them know what it considered to be a good course of action This part I disagree with, because what is misinformation is unknownable before serious scientific study is done. It just makes the government look untrustworthy if they flip-flop from "masks are pointless" to "masks are essential" and back simply all because these policies were not based on any real science. Similarly debate of other aspects like COVID origin, vaccine health effects etc was stifled when the real answers were unknown to science, and by steering the conversation in any particular direction before that it's done irreparable harm to the reputation of government, science and tech.
- Klinky 4y ago
  Com'on, someone linking to a poorly done study claiming it proves "drug x cures COVID" isn't misinformation? Someone posting about 5G or Bill Gates being the source of the infection isn't misinformation? Someone going on some racist tirade about Chinese people isn't misinformed hate speech? You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate? Plenty of people were trying to steer the conversation in specific directions with little regard for the scientific accuracy of what they were stating.
  - ajvs 4y ago
    > You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate? Yes, otherwise what happens when the ruling party is no longer your team? What if everything becomes inverted, so if you tried to say Bill Gates isn't one of the biggest beneficiaries of COVID then you get "visibility filtered" AKA shadowbanned? Then you make a detailed explanation about how the story of the Wuhan lab having had a virus leak was all just a hoax, but oops that is a final strike and now you're banned? The bar for censorship shouldn't be so low and arbitrary. Social media platforms should exist to help us change our minds by discussing and debating with others (like we are doing right here), not be all echo chambers and filter bubbles.
    - 4y ago

leereeves 4y ago

Who gave them the mandate to control information about Covid? Trump was president at the time and he certainly didn't. And even granting, for the sake of argument, that someone within the government had that job, suppressing disagreement and debate is not the right way to do it.

int_19h 4y ago
From the article: "Internal emails that I viewed at Twitter showed that both the Trump and Biden administrations directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s content according to their wishes. At the onset of the pandemic, the Trump administration was especially concerned about panic buying, and sought “help from the tech companies to combat misinformation,” according to emails sent by Twitter employees in the wake of meetings with the White House. One area of so-called misinformation: “runs on grocery stores.” The trouble is that it wasn't misinformation: There actually were runs on goods. "
- leereeves 4y ago
  And Trump was wrong to do that, but please note that I was replying to: > There are people within the government whose job it was to respond to the covid pandemic. Part of that response involved educating the public about the disease and best practices related to it, which therefore included fighting misinformation. It wasn't Trump pushing Twitter to ban anything that disagreed with the CDC's official position, and Trump separately pushing to ban misinformation about panic buying doesn't justify it.

cudgy 4y ago

> … which therefore included fighting misinformation. I fail to see how this conclusion is automatic or helpful in action. Educating people and providing best practices is harmed by taking direct action to shut down criticism and debate.

ajvs 4y ago

> Misinformation is spread on platforms such as Twitter, so it made sense for the government to communicate with Twitter and let them know what it considered to be a good course of action This part I disagree with, because what is misinformation is unknownable before serious scientific study is done. It just makes the government look untrustworthy if they flip-flop from "masks are pointless" to "masks are essential" and back simply all because these policies were not based on any real science. Similarly debate of other aspects like COVID origin, vaccine health effects etc was stifled when the real answers were unknown to science, and by steering the conversation in any particular direction before that it's done irreparable harm to the reputation of government, science and tech.

Klinky 4y ago
Com'on, someone linking to a poorly done study claiming it proves "drug x cures COVID" isn't misinformation? Someone posting about 5G or Bill Gates being the source of the infection isn't misinformation? Someone going on some racist tirade about Chinese people isn't misinformed hate speech? You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate? Plenty of people were trying to steer the conversation in specific directions with little regard for the scientific accuracy of what they were stating.
- ajvs 4y ago
  > You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate? Yes, otherwise what happens when the ruling party is no longer your team? What if everything becomes inverted, so if you tried to say Bill Gates isn't one of the biggest beneficiaries of COVID then you get "visibility filtered" AKA shadowbanned? Then you make a detailed explanation about how the story of the Wuhan lab having had a virus leak was all just a hoax, but oops that is a final strike and now you're banned? The bar for censorship shouldn't be so low and arbitrary. Social media platforms should exist to help us change our minds by discussing and debating with others (like we are doing right here), not be all echo chambers and filter bubbles.
  - 4y ago