4 ms·

> He’s a common one How did he get into the "usual suspects" box? > it’s worth remembering that despite lying about the severity of the disease He wasn't jus

> He’s a common one How did he get into the "usual suspects" box? > it’s worth remembering that despite lying about the severity of the disease He wasn't just wrong or mistaken (if he was) or providing a different view, he was lying. That must be how he got into that box. I presume you have some sort of evidence, given such a bold claim? > pushing myths about herd immunity Would you care to give an example of that too? As I understand it, he was pushing the conventional line, conventional up until this pandemic, at least. > Twitter chose not to have their company amplify his voice but his followers and organic discovery were unaffected. That isn't true. From [1]: > Actually, it’s a set of tools that include locking users out of searches and preventing some users’ tweets from trending—which is how countless other users discover what’s popular or being talked about on Twitter. > “We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do,” one Twitter employee told us. Two additional Twitter employees confirmed this. and from the Unherd interview I provided above: > What I understand is that my Twitter messages can reach people who directly follow me. But they have no chance of being put on a broader visibility setting, so that people who don’t follow me would see my messages. That means "organic discovery" is severely limited. I wonder if you would consider a hellban to be deplatforming or not. [1] https://www.thefp.com/p/twitters-secret-blacklists https://www.thefp.com/p/twitters-secret-blacklists

acdha 4y ago
What moves him into probable deception for me is that he wasn’t just repeatedly wrong about everything of substance but that his errors were always aligned with something which made him money. Botching the methodology on the paper you’re using to argue for removing safeguards is bad but it’s worse not to mention that you were funded by one of the industries affected. > I wonder if you would consider a hellban to be deplatforming or not. I would consider it something which didn’t happen to him. Being blocked from trending based on his history of bad advice may not be something you like but it‘s nowhere near deplatforming unless you’re defining that term as meaning that you don’t get free promotion.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > Botching the methodology on the paper you’re using to argue for removing safeguards is bad but it’s worse not to mention that you were funded by one of the industries affected. You're being too coy. Which industry and which paper? I'm not sure what's preventing you from being more specific, especially since you were lamenting vague examples earlier. > unless you’re defining that term as meaning that you don’t get free promotion. So if you can seemingly access a service but not be provided that service then you haven't been deplatformed? That sounds a lot like being given a telephone and a dial tone but you can only call out to prearranged numbers and meanwhile no one can call in nor find out your number and yet the phone company claims they're not denying you service. In other words, preposterous.

acdha 4y ago

What moves him into probable deception for me is that he wasn’t just repeatedly wrong about everything of substance but that his errors were always aligned with something which made him money. Botching the methodology on the paper you’re using to argue for removing safeguards is bad but it’s worse not to mention that you were funded by one of the industries affected. > I wonder if you would consider a hellban to be deplatforming or not. I would consider it something which didn’t happen to him. Being blocked from trending based on his history of bad advice may not be something you like but it‘s nowhere near deplatforming unless you’re defining that term as meaning that you don’t get free promotion.

brigandish 4y ago
> Botching the methodology on the paper you’re using to argue for removing safeguards is bad but it’s worse not to mention that you were funded by one of the industries affected. You're being too coy. Which industry and which paper? I'm not sure what's preventing you from being more specific, especially since you were lamenting vague examples earlier. > unless you’re defining that term as meaning that you don’t get free promotion. So if you can seemingly access a service but not be provided that service then you haven't been deplatformed? That sounds a lot like being given a telephone and a dial tone but you can only call out to prearranged numbers and meanwhile no one can call in nor find out your number and yet the phone company claims they're not denying you service. In other words, preposterous.