> We will require the deletion of Tweets that contain, for example: [..] Claims that specific groups or people (or other demographically-identifiable identity) are more or less prone to be infected or to develop adverse symptoms on the basis of their membership in that group;
I thought the elderly being more at-risk of COVID was uncontroversial?
> False claims about COVID-19 that invoke a deliberate conspiracy by malicious and/or powerful forces
This is very ambiguous - are such claims only forbidden if they are false, or is the sentence implying that all such claims are false? For example, is pointing out that China pushed to maintain international travel, at the same time it was locking down internally [1,2], forbidden?
[1] While Chinese authorities limited domestic flights from Wuhan to other Chinese cities like Beijing and Shanghai in an effort to contain the outbreak in January, it urged international carriers to maintain their flying schedules. - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/Whathappensif/how...
Different age groups have been shown to have different propensity to adverse symptoms of covid many times, this is very firm science at this point. You can't get much lower than censoring scientific information during a pandemic when it suits your agenda. The blatant science denial and disregard of reality from corporations never ceases to amaze me even though we've seen it countless times from tobacco, fossil fuel, asbestos, etc.
Twitter isn't removing any tweets saying "it's more dangerous for old people". But they will remove tweets that say "I'm not vaccinating my children because children never die from COVID" because the person tweeting this is feeding into COVID denialism, which is dangerous. These people are not interested in facts they are weaponising single data points in an attempt to further their "planedminc" agenda.
Interesting you bring up tobacco/fossil fuels because the media manipulation techniques they pioneered are now being used to fight COVID reality and the talking points are then regurgitated by idiots who die alone, gasping. e.g. "Medical Freedom" as rallying cry used to justify infecting others, denying COVID (it's just the flu), etc.
The denialism isn't coming from twitter here. Twitter is 100% trash company and 99% trash users but these rules are there to fight what you say you are against ("science denial and disregard of reality").
> Twitter isn't removing any tweets saying "it's more dangerous for old people".
The page linked to says otherwise.
> But they will remove tweets that say "I'm not vaccinating my children because children never die from COVID" because the person tweeting this is feeding into COVID denialism, which is dangerous. These people are not interested in facts they are weaponising single data points in an attempt to further their "planedminc" agenda.
Do you have a source for this claim, which contradicts twitter's official statement on policy?
> Interesting you bring up tobacco/fossil fuels because the media manipulation techniques they pioneered are now being used to fight COVID reality and the talking points are then regurgitated by idiots who die alone, gasping. e.g. "Medical Freedom" as rallying cry used to justify infecting others, denying COVID (it's just the flu), etc.
Which media manipulation techniques are you talking about? I don't remember tobacco or fossil fuel companies talking about medical freedom, but maybe I'm too young. I'm talking about how they denied scientific evidence linking their products to cancer and global warming. Twitter is denying the irrefutable scientific evidence showing risk varies across demographics.
> The denialism isn't coming from twitter here.
It is. It's in the page linked to. And from comments on HN, evidently.
> Twitter is 100% trash company and 99% trash users but
I don't understand what this kind of commentary adds.
> these rules are there to fight what you say you are against ("science denial and disregard of reality").
No I don't think they are, I think they're dressed up as that with lip service to some scientific facts and evidence, to hide the fact that they're attempting to silence the science around risk and benefit of vaccines and covid in young children.
If that was the intent, that would be what the policy says. Instead it lists a rule that clearly implies all claims that risks differ across demographic groups is misinformation, and subject to removal.
> because the person tweeting this is feeding into COVID denialism, which is dangerous
Is that dangerous? Because our response to Covid seems to be quite dangerous.
If you hide such info, I think you are full of it and lied about it. Lacking trust is dangerous for any public institution. Shutting down whole industries preemptively can be dangerous.
Telling the truth is far less dangerous. Exception may be if it might cause a panic. But the opposite is true right now.
Covid is a serious disease but not a significant threat to people under 60 years. That is a fact, even if you account for all side effects and alleged long covid symptoms, which certainly can happen, but are as rare as vaccine side effects.
From 100,000 dead in my country, less than 5000 where in age groups < 60, nearly 65 years. This is blatant misinformation to get kids to vaccinate themselves, which I find is highly questionable.
>To promote vaccines, Health Minister Adam Niedzielski pointed out on Monday that of the 1,085 people under age 44 who died with Covid-19 so far this year in Poland, only 3 per cent were fully vaccinated.
10 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 26.8 ms ] threadI thought the elderly being more at-risk of COVID was uncontroversial?
> False claims about COVID-19 that invoke a deliberate conspiracy by malicious and/or powerful forces
This is very ambiguous - are such claims only forbidden if they are false, or is the sentence implying that all such claims are false? For example, is pointing out that China pushed to maintain international travel, at the same time it was locking down internally [1,2], forbidden?
[1] While Chinese authorities limited domestic flights from Wuhan to other Chinese cities like Beijing and Shanghai in an effort to contain the outbreak in January, it urged international carriers to maintain their flying schedules. - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/Whathappensif/how...
[2] China lashes out at countries restricting travel over virus - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/china-las...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986434/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28202713/
Interesting you bring up tobacco/fossil fuels because the media manipulation techniques they pioneered are now being used to fight COVID reality and the talking points are then regurgitated by idiots who die alone, gasping. e.g. "Medical Freedom" as rallying cry used to justify infecting others, denying COVID (it's just the flu), etc.
The denialism isn't coming from twitter here. Twitter is 100% trash company and 99% trash users but these rules are there to fight what you say you are against ("science denial and disregard of reality").
The page linked to says otherwise.
> But they will remove tweets that say "I'm not vaccinating my children because children never die from COVID" because the person tweeting this is feeding into COVID denialism, which is dangerous. These people are not interested in facts they are weaponising single data points in an attempt to further their "planedminc" agenda.
Do you have a source for this claim, which contradicts twitter's official statement on policy?
> Interesting you bring up tobacco/fossil fuels because the media manipulation techniques they pioneered are now being used to fight COVID reality and the talking points are then regurgitated by idiots who die alone, gasping. e.g. "Medical Freedom" as rallying cry used to justify infecting others, denying COVID (it's just the flu), etc.
Which media manipulation techniques are you talking about? I don't remember tobacco or fossil fuel companies talking about medical freedom, but maybe I'm too young. I'm talking about how they denied scientific evidence linking their products to cancer and global warming. Twitter is denying the irrefutable scientific evidence showing risk varies across demographics.
> The denialism isn't coming from twitter here.
It is. It's in the page linked to. And from comments on HN, evidently.
> Twitter is 100% trash company and 99% trash users but
I don't understand what this kind of commentary adds.
> these rules are there to fight what you say you are against ("science denial and disregard of reality").
No I don't think they are, I think they're dressed up as that with lip service to some scientific facts and evidence, to hide the fact that they're attempting to silence the science around risk and benefit of vaccines and covid in young children.
Is that dangerous? Because our response to Covid seems to be quite dangerous.
If you hide such info, I think you are full of it and lied about it. Lacking trust is dangerous for any public institution. Shutting down whole industries preemptively can be dangerous.
Telling the truth is far less dangerous. Exception may be if it might cause a panic. But the opposite is true right now.
Covid is a serious disease but not a significant threat to people under 60 years. That is a fact, even if you account for all side effects and alleged long covid symptoms, which certainly can happen, but are as rare as vaccine side effects.
>To promote vaccines, Health Minister Adam Niedzielski pointed out on Monday that of the 1,085 people under age 44 who died with Covid-19 so far this year in Poland, only 3 per cent were fully vaccinated.
50K / 1K = 2%
checks out https://www.statista.com/statistics/1110890/poland-coronavir...
Now they want to vaccinate children because mortality is ... 0%