4 ms·

> People who are de-platformed are almost always people who others WANT to hear. A tiny minority. The majority listens to public health (in the case of Covid)

> People who are de-platformed are almost always people who others WANT to hear. A tiny minority. The majority listens to public health (in the case of Covid) and doesn’t want to read conspiracy theories or research analysis by someone unqualified.

gigatexal 4y ago
This. This is so well said. It’s what I was trying to say but got ended up being more trolly than I had hoped.
nunobrito 4y ago
Qualified voices were either censored on social media or ignored by political powers in regards to COVID. In Portugal, the group of medical experts assembled by the government was ignored after they opposed the political decision for injecting children: https://www.publico.pt/2021/07/20/sociedade/noticia/comissao-tecnica-so-aconselha-vacinacao-jovens-12-15-anos-comorbilidades-1971060 https://www.publico.pt/2021/07/20/sociedade/noticia/comissao... It is wrong to dismiss the opinion of experts on this topic just because it goes against what mainstream media and political groups decide to impose.
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  They opposed it because they said there wasn’t enough information. That is the excuse for doing nothing — an argument repeated ad nauseam during the pandemic. Certainly there is an argument that children will be harmed if we do nothing. It’s a difficult decision because children a small number if children die from Covid, but it’s still not zero. The best way forward is to proceed with caution.
  - nunobrito 4y ago
    They clearly stated their opposition to injecting an experimental substance on children. After two years before the injections existed exactly 3 cases of COVID-diagnosed deaths across a population of +700 thousand children in Portugal. Now the number of children with heart problems related to the injections is visible on news at plain sight. The experts were ignored. Those supporting the experts on social media got banned or shadowbanned. This is not science, unless you consider medieval practices to be science.
pessimizer 4y ago
This is obviously false. Some people will eventually have to learn to cope with the fact that Trump won an election, which means that their received wisdom is not a consensual truth. edit: Additionally, the reasoning is fallacious - all people are minorities in many ways, so a few dozen tiny minorities can add up to an entire population. You may not disagree with the government about covid (although the government has disagreed with itself about covid), but you might disagree with the government about something else. You're making the case that all social media should simply agree with the government line (because the people who disagree are minorities.) That's a dangerous case to make if you ever want to replace a government democratically.
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  You are correct. Trump won in 2016. Scientists work for the government. If something is wrong we should fight to fix it. But almost all of the scientists outside of government agree with the scientists that work for the government.

gigatexal 4y ago

This. This is so well said. It’s what I was trying to say but got ended up being more trolly than I had hoped.

nunobrito 4y ago

Qualified voices were either censored on social media or ignored by political powers in regards to COVID. In Portugal, the group of medical experts assembled by the government was ignored after they opposed the political decision for injecting children: https://www.publico.pt/2021/07/20/sociedade/noticia/comissao-tecnica-so-aconselha-vacinacao-jovens-12-15-anos-comorbilidades-1971060 https://www.publico.pt/2021/07/20/sociedade/noticia/comissao... It is wrong to dismiss the opinion of experts on this topic just because it goes against what mainstream media and political groups decide to impose.

cactusplant7374 4y ago
They opposed it because they said there wasn’t enough information. That is the excuse for doing nothing — an argument repeated ad nauseam during the pandemic. Certainly there is an argument that children will be harmed if we do nothing. It’s a difficult decision because children a small number if children die from Covid, but it’s still not zero. The best way forward is to proceed with caution.
- nunobrito 4y ago
  They clearly stated their opposition to injecting an experimental substance on children. After two years before the injections existed exactly 3 cases of COVID-diagnosed deaths across a population of +700 thousand children in Portugal. Now the number of children with heart problems related to the injections is visible on news at plain sight. The experts were ignored. Those supporting the experts on social media got banned or shadowbanned. This is not science, unless you consider medieval practices to be science.

pessimizer 4y ago

This is obviously false. Some people will eventually have to learn to cope with the fact that Trump won an election, which means that their received wisdom is not a consensual truth. edit: Additionally, the reasoning is fallacious - all people are minorities in many ways, so a few dozen tiny minorities can add up to an entire population. You may not disagree with the government about covid (although the government has disagreed with itself about covid), but you might disagree with the government about something else. You're making the case that all social media should simply agree with the government line (because the people who disagree are minorities.) That's a dangerous case to make if you ever want to replace a government democratically.

cactusplant7374 4y ago
You are correct. Trump won in 2016. Scientists work for the government. If something is wrong we should fight to fix it. But almost all of the scientists outside of government agree with the scientists that work for the government.