Twitter is a Private Company
terp said:
I'd like to revisit some of the censoring that has been going on in Social media. For a while, Conservatives and other people who question the official narrative around various topics have complained that they have been shadow banned, banned for some time, and sometimes permanently banned.
The sentiment around here IIRC, has been. Well that's because you're rude, or what have you. When it has been shown that the policies have not been applied fairly, that's been met with "Well Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want".
Does it change anyone's mind that it seems as though the current administration seemed to be, at the very least requesting that Alex Berenson be banned? We've learned this through the discovery of the Alex Berenson vs Twitter case. While the case seems to focus on the breach of contract by Twitter, this does seem like a clear violation of Berenson's first amendment rights. Especially when you consider how many times Jack Dorsey was questioned by Congress and the pressure certain Congressmen put on \him to stop this behavior. This behavior they complain about used to be called journalism.
Since this is being reported by Berenson himself, who is a proven liar, I have my doubts about his version of the story.
I don't see anything in what he wrote that rises to the level of the WH requesting that he be banned. Maybe you can point out that part.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
I'd like to revisit some of the censoring that has been going on in Social media. For a while, Conservatives and other people who question the official narrative around various topics have complained that they have been shadow banned, banned for some time, and sometimes permanently banned.
The sentiment around here IIRC, has been. Well that's because you're rude, or what have you. When it has been shown that the policies have not been applied fairly, that's been met with "Well Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want".
Does it change anyone's mind that it seems as though the current administration seemed to be, at the very least requesting that Alex Berenson be banned? We've learned this through the discovery of the Alex Berenson vs Twitter case. While the case seems to focus on the breach of contract by Twitter, this does seem like a clear violation of Berenson's first amendment rights. Especially when you consider how many times Jack Dorsey was questioned by Congress and the pressure certain Congressmen put on \him to stop this behavior. This behavior they complain about used to be called journalism.
Since this is being reported by Berenson himself, who is a proven liar, I have my doubts about his version of the story.
I don't see anything in what he wrote that rises to the level of the WH requesting that he be banned. Maybe you can point out that part.
There is an image of a slack conversation at twitter where the WH asked twitter why he hasn't been banned.
Where has it been proven that Berenson is a liar?
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
I'd like to revisit some of the censoring that has been going on in Social media. For a while, Conservatives and other people who question the official narrative around various topics have complained that they have been shadow banned, banned for some time, and sometimes permanently banned.
The sentiment around here IIRC, has been. Well that's because you're rude, or what have you. When it has been shown that the policies have not been applied fairly, that's been met with "Well Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want".
Does it change anyone's mind that it seems as though the current administration seemed to be, at the very least requesting that Alex Berenson be banned? We've learned this through the discovery of the Alex Berenson vs Twitter case. While the case seems to focus on the breach of contract by Twitter, this does seem like a clear violation of Berenson's first amendment rights. Especially when you consider how many times Jack Dorsey was questioned by Congress and the pressure certain Congressmen put on \him to stop this behavior. This behavior they complain about used to be called journalism.
Since this is being reported by Berenson himself, who is a proven liar, I have my doubts about his version of the story.
I don't see anything in what he wrote that rises to the level of the WH requesting that he be banned. Maybe you can point out that part.
There is an image of a slack conversation at twitter where the WH asked twitter why he hasn't been banned.
Where has it been proven that Berenson is a liar?
You understand that one question about why Berenson has not been banned is not the same as requesting that he be banned, right?
As for his proven to be a liar, you need to get out more.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
I'd like to revisit some of the censoring that has been going on in Social media. For a while, Conservatives and other people who question the official narrative around various topics have complained that they have been shadow banned, banned for some time, and sometimes permanently banned.
The sentiment around here IIRC, has been. Well that's because you're rude, or what have you. When it has been shown that the policies have not been applied fairly, that's been met with "Well Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want".
Does it change anyone's mind that it seems as though the current administration seemed to be, at the very least requesting that Alex Berenson be banned? We've learned this through the discovery of the Alex Berenson vs Twitter case. While the case seems to focus on the breach of contract by Twitter, this does seem like a clear violation of Berenson's first amendment rights. Especially when you consider how many times Jack Dorsey was questioned by Congress and the pressure certain Congressmen put on \him to stop this behavior. This behavior they complain about used to be called journalism.
Since this is being reported by Berenson himself, who is a proven liar, I have my doubts about his version of the story.
I don't see anything in what he wrote that rises to the level of the WH requesting that he be banned. Maybe you can point out that part.
There is an image of a slack conversation at twitter where the WH asked twitter why he hasn't been banned.
Where has it been proven that Berenson is a liar?
You understand that one question about why Berenson has not been banned is not the same as requesting that he be banned, right?
As for his proven to be a liar, you need to get out more.
That is pretzel logic. They were clearly pressuring them from the employees reaction.
I shouldn't be surprised by your reaction. I guess I hoped somewhere deep down inside if we dug long enough we'd find some remnant of a principal. I guess not. Because, you are going to rationalize your way into being really comfortable with the WH pressuring a company to shut up what they perceive as dissent.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
I'd like to revisit some of the censoring that has been going on in Social media. For a while, Conservatives and other people who question the official narrative around various topics have complained that they have been shadow banned, banned for some time, and sometimes permanently banned.
The sentiment around here IIRC, has been. Well that's because you're rude, or what have you. When it has been shown that the policies have not been applied fairly, that's been met with "Well Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want".
Does it change anyone's mind that it seems as though the current administration seemed to be, at the very least requesting that Alex Berenson be banned? We've learned this through the discovery of the Alex Berenson vs Twitter case. While the case seems to focus on the breach of contract by Twitter, this does seem like a clear violation of Berenson's first amendment rights. Especially when you consider how many times Jack Dorsey was questioned by Congress and the pressure certain Congressmen put on \him to stop this behavior. This behavior they complain about used to be called journalism.
Since this is being reported by Berenson himself, who is a proven liar, I have my doubts about his version of the story.
I don't see anything in what he wrote that rises to the level of the WH requesting that he be banned. Maybe you can point out that part.
There is an image of a slack conversation at twitter where the WH asked twitter why he hasn't been banned.
Where has it been proven that Berenson is a liar?
You understand that one question about why Berenson has not been banned is not the same as requesting that he be banned, right?
As for his proven to be a liar, you need to get out more.
That is pretzel logic. They were clearly pressuring them from the employees reaction.
I shouldn't be surprised by your reaction. I guess I hoped somewhere deep down inside if we dug long enough we'd find some remnant of a principal. I guess not. Because, you are going to rationalize your way into being really comfortable with the WH pressuring a company to shut up what they perceive as dissent.
They asked one frigging question according to the Slack convo. Some pressure. We don't even know what the question was. But you and Alex can pretend away.
And clearly spreading misinformation is not really the same as dissent.
As for Berenson, this is a good place to start
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/
That article has not aged particularly well.
But just this week, CDC researchers studying real-world conditions came to the opposite conclusion: The mRNA vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer are 90 percent effective two weeks after the second dose, in line with the trial data. “COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons,” they concluded.
terp said:
That article has not aged particularly well.
But just this week, CDC researchers studying real-world conditions came to the opposite conclusion: The mRNA vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer are 90 percent effective two weeks after the second dose, in line with the trial data. “COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons,” they concluded.
what?
Also, do you think the title of Berenson's piece (repeated below) is in any way accurate?
Does his piece buttress this headline? It clearly does not.
Calling it a lie seems pretty spot on.
The White House privately demanded Twitter ban me months before the company did so
terp said:
That is pretzel logic. They were clearly pressuring them from the employees reaction.
I shouldn't be surprised by your reaction. I guess I hoped somewhere deep down inside if we dug long enough we'd find some remnant of a principal. I guess not. Because, you are going to rationalize your way into being really comfortable with the WH pressuring a company to shut up what they perceive as dissent.
Disagreeing with your exaggeration does not make one "unprincipled".
Your resort to insults instead of facts, however ...
For balance/completeness, a more recent Atlantic article
It's not clear what terp is asking for here -- some sort of government action to make Twitter act in the way he wants?
I don't have links to my previous posts immediately at hand, but as I've argued in the past, I think that's misguided. The actual problem is that a small number of platforms, controlled by a tiny number of private (and very wealthy) individuals, have way too much power over public discourse. If the platforms were smaller and less powerful, few would care about claims of censorship, misinformation, etc. Who cares what Trump and Co are saying on Truth Social, after all?
If we're going to be proposing government action, I don't want to try and get into a self-defeating argument about "good" censorship vs "bad" censorship (presumably terp would have fewer problems with a Musk-owned Twitter getting all cozy with president-for-life Trump). I want action that breaks up the concentration of wealth and power in a small number of private, unaccountable individuals.
I'd start with far stricter privacy laws. Go after the whole economic model that encourages growth at all costs and has led us to this era of surveillance capitalism. Pair that with much higher taxes on the wealthy and strict campaign finance laws, to defang the ability of the Dorseys, Musks, Bezos, Zuckerbergs, etc to bend the state to their will. And so on in that vein. Then let people say whatever they like on the resulting smaller platforms, and let those smaller platforms enforce whatever moderation policies they want.
I'm not surprised there are still people arguing that the COVID vaccines weren't effective. All over the Twitter there are people insisting the vaccines were useless. Or arguing that because they require boosters, "they don't work."
Even after all the variants that emerged, people who were fully boosted had much better outcomes than the unvaccinated.
facts are stubborn things.
Another way to think about the protection vaccination provides is to compare the ratios of death rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. For the month of March, “unvaccinated people 12 years and older had 17 times the rate of COVID-associated deaths, compared to people vaccinated with a primary series and a booster dose,” says Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service commander Heather Scobie, deputy team lead for surveillance and analytics at the CDC’s Epidemiology Task Force.* “Unvaccinated people had eight times the rate of death as compared to people who only had a primary series,” suggesting that boosters increase the level of protection.
At this point, it's assumed that nearly all unvaccinated people have been infected at some point in the past 2 years (likely within the past year). So the fact that CDC guidelines are changing doesn't mean vaccines don't work. It means that we've achieved a very high level of population immunity through a combination of vaccinations and infections.
but here's the important stat. The rates, not the raw numbers, comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated, after the omicron surge.
The thing about Covid vaccines is that they don't work the way we expect vaccines to work. They neither prevent infection nor prevent transmission. What they do is significantly lessen the effects of the disease.
Does any other vaccine work that way? The traditional big name vaccines were designed to eliminate diseases, which many did (or came close to) when we had enough compliance. Obviously the Covid vaccine is not going to eliminate Covid, even if we had 100% compliance.
drummerboy said:
The thing about Covid vaccines is that they don't work the way we expect vaccines to work. They neither prevent infection nor prevent transmission. What they do is significantly lessen the effects of the disease.
Does any other vaccine work that way? The traditional big name vaccines were designed to eliminate diseases, which many did (or came close to) when we had enough compliance. Obviously the Covid vaccine is not going to eliminate Covid, even if we had 100% compliance.
I believe the concept you're asking about is "sterilizing immunity." Science writer Katherine Wu had an article about this in the Atlantic about a year ago:
...
COVID-19 vaccines were never going to give us sterilizing immunity; it’s possible they never will. But the reason isn’t just their design, or the wily nature of the virus, or heavy and frequent exposures, though those factors all play a role. It’s that sterilizing immunity itself might be a biological myth.
The classic tale of sterilizing immunity unfolds something like this: A pathogen attempts to infiltrate a body; antibodies, lurking in the vicinity thanks to vaccination or a previous infection, instantly zap it out of existence, so speedily that the microbe can’t even reproduce. No symptoms manifest, and most of the body’s immune cells never get involved, a bit like an intruder smacking up against an electric fence around a building, leaving the security guards inside none the wiser.
This is a very neat story. And it is “almost impossible to prove,” Mark Slifka, an immunologist and vaccine expert at Oregon Health & Science University, told me. To show sterilizing immunity, researchers have to demonstrate that an infection never occurred—a big ask, considering that microbiologists can’t even agree on what an infection actually is. An onslaught of pathogens ravaging the airway or gut certainly counts. But according to some experts, so does a single viral particle commencing the process of copying itself inside a cell. This is further muddled by the fact that many pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, can set up shop inside their hosts without causing a single symptom. There is, and always has been, a disconnect between infection and disease
....
That technical coarseness might help explain why several historical vaccines have been assumed to be sterilizing. With measles, for instance, scientists initially lacked the tests needed to show them otherwise, Diane Griffin, an immunologist at Johns Hopkins University, told me. When virtually no one fell ill after an inoculation campaign, researchers figured that infections had evaporated as well. Now, however, techniques are far more powerful, giving researchers the ability to zero in on even tiny blips of infection. Post-vaccination measles infections, though still uncommon, are much more “regularly observed” than they were once believed to be, Griffin said.
...
The dubiousness of sterilizing immunity is a reminder that just about any immune response can be overwhelmed, if exposures are heavy and frequent enough, Grad told me. The best we can all hope for is functional immunity, more like a flame retardant than a firewall, that still keeps bad burns at bay.
That’s the effect our COVID-19 vaccines are delivering in spades. Yes, immunized people can get sick; a few of them might even end up in the hospital, or die from their viral encounter. But vaccines substantially slash those chances by making hosts inhospitable
....
The smallpox vaccine wasn’t sterilizing; it still helped us eradicate a pathogen. Even measles, a virus that’s much more contagious than SARS-CoV-2, can offer an optimistic example. Some people do end up getting infected after vaccination. But the vaccine has, in the decades since its premiere, largely driven measles into the ground in the United States, apart from recent outbreaks largely linked to low immunization rates. And the few immunized people who do fall ill tend to get what’s called “modified” measles, which isn’t “as bad as usual,” Griffin told me.
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
The thing about Covid vaccines is that they don't work the way we expect vaccines to work. They neither prevent infection nor prevent transmission. What they do is significantly lessen the effects of the disease.
Does any other vaccine work that way? The traditional big name vaccines were designed to eliminate diseases, which many did (or came close to) when we had enough compliance. Obviously the Covid vaccine is not going to eliminate Covid, even if we had 100% compliance.
I believe the concept you're asking about is "sterilizing immunity." Science writer Katherine Wu had an article about this in the Atlantic about a year ago:
I dunno. Calling it a myth seems like click bait to me.
The author gives pretty short thrift to the smallpox vaccine, which is pretty clearly an example of sterilizing immunity, isn't it? And polio? Not even mentioned.
Are there any other major vaccines that behave like the Covid vaccines? I don't see any examples in the piece.
I am unconvinced that the Covid vaccines are not unique in how they work.
I mean, the flu readily comes to mind as a vaccine that's very familiar and very far from sterilizing immunity, doesn't it?
I was curious about some of the other examples you noted though. Did some quick searching on the CDC site:
Smallpox vaccination can protect you from smallpox for about 3 to 5 years. After that time, its ability to protect you decreases. If you need long-term protection, you may need to get a booster vaccination. Find out who should get smallpox vaccine.Historically, the vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated.
Not sure that really gets to the question of sterilizing immunity, but I didn't know that it could need a booster.
Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is the only polio vaccine that has been given in the United States since 2000. IPV protects against severe disease caused by poliovirus in almost everyone (99 out of 100) who has received all the recommended doses.
I found the qualification of "protects against severe disease" interesting. So presumably some vaccinated number of people still get sick with polio, but not severely.
Some people who get two doses of MMR vaccine may still get measles, mumps, or rubella if they are exposed to the viruses that cause these diseases. Experts aren’t sure why; it could be that their immune systems didn’t respond as well as they should have to the vaccine or their immune system’s ability to fight the infection decreased over time. However, disease symptoms are generally milder in vaccinated people.
- About 3 out of 100 people who get two doses of MMR vaccine will get measles if exposed to the virus. However, they are more likely to have a milder illness, and are also less likely to spread the disease to other people.
- Two doses of MMR vaccine are 88% (range 32% to 95%) effective at preventing mumps. Mumps outbreaks can still occur in highly vaccinated U.S. communities, particularly in settings where people have close, prolonged contact, such as universities and close-knit communities. During an outbreak, public health authorities may recommend an additional dose of MMR for people who belong to groups at increased risk for mumps. An additional dose can help improve protection against mumps disease and related complications.
- While there are not many studies available, most people who do not respond to the rubella component of the first MMR dose would be expected to respond to the second dose.
Ok, trying to quote and keep the bullet point formatting didn't work out too well, but still readable I think. MMR seems closer to our experience with COVID, in that it's clearly not sterilizing immunity?
Anyway, as I said that was just a quick search. Probably best to ask someone like bikefixed, er Peter Wick, in a non-politics section for better/more thorough answers.
PVW said:
I mean, the flu readily comes to mind as a vaccine that's very familiar and very far from sterilizing immunity, doesn't it?
Haven't read your whole post yet, but the flu vaccine is quite different than other vaccines, due to the fact that there are many strains of flu. When developing the vaccine for the upcoming year, they're basically guessing at what will be prevalent strain. Can't compare this to the more standard vaccines.
Even then, I think that the expected effect of the vaccine on the targeted strain is to prevent transmission and infection, not to serve as a therapeutic.
How did we get from Twitter to another debate about vaccines?
Terp is pissed off because trumpenstein got banned from Twitter… trumpenstein creates “truth social “ with other peoples money of course… haven’t paid any of their bills since March… possibly going into liquidation next month. Will terp blame the liberals for that also? I’m sure there’s some plan in place to blame Biden or the FBI or MSM
Jaytee said:
How did we get from Twitter to another debate about vaccines?
Terp is pissed off because trumpenstein got banned from Twitter… trumpenstein creates “truth social “ with other peoples money of course… haven’t paid any of their bills since March… possibly going into liquidation next month. Will terp blame the liberals for that also? I’m sure there’s some plan in place to blame Biden or the FBI or MSM
I think that's right. I mean, I think its safe to debate the efficacy of the various measures forced upon a supposedly free people during the pandemic nowadays, but maybe Jamie thinks differently. Anyway, I think that is another thread.
I'd like to focus on the Berenson case here. Are people comfortable with the Whitehouse pressing a publisher to squash dissent against their narrative and policies.
As a reminder, this is the tweet (other than the pressure that the WH allegedly applied to twitter). I think this aged pretty well. And it doesn't really matter if he was right. The real question is: Do journalists have the right to look at the data and publish conclusions that differ from the official narrative? I would argue that I would rather not live in a country that does not allow this.
You keep on saying this as if it were true.terp said:
Are people comfortable with the Whitehouse pressing a publisher to squash dissent against their narrative and policies.
terp said:
As a reminder, this is the tweet (other than the pressure that the WH allegedly applied to twitter). I think this aged pretty well. And it doesn't really matter if he was right. The real question is: Do journalists have the right to look at the data and publish conclusions that differ from the official narrative? I would argue that I would rather not live in a country that does not allow this.
The topic is public health, so it does really matter if he was right. And a private company has the right not to publish "conclusions" that aren't supported as claimed by the author.
nohero said:
The topic is public health, so it does really matter if he was right. And a private company has the right not to publish "conclusions" that aren't supported as claimed by the author.
I don't get the reason why the anti-mandate people need to try and discredit the efficacy of the COVID vaccines. If you are standing on the principle that "freedom" is incompatible with vaccine mandates, why should it matter if the vaccine is effective. Even if it's 100% effective, the principle of "freedom" would still hold, wouldn't it and mandating a 100% effective vaccine would still be an unacceptable infringement.
it's also a tough leg to try to stand on when even during the Omicron wave, the death rate was about 17X higher among the unvaxxed compared to the fully boosted. It's hard to make the case that the vaccine wasn't responsible for that enormous disparity.
It doesn't matter if he was right. The question is: Are we comfortable with the government pressuring companies who control platforms where people get their news to silence dissent.
The only response to this question is riddled with intellectual cowardice denying this ever took place.
I will take the "hey let's talk about everything but that question to mean": The regular MOL politics posters are super-comfortable with it, we actually REALLY LIKE IT when our team is in charge.
I'll await the "my fingers were just too exhausted to respond, but I don't really support tyranny...."
I, for one, look forward to what President DeSantis does with this precedent.
terp said:
. The question is: Are we comfortable with the government pressuring companies who control platforms where people get their news to silence dissent.
You keep on saying this as if it were true.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
. The question is: Are we comfortable with the government pressuring companies who control platforms where people get their news to silence dissent.
You keep on saying this as if it were true.
Because it is very likely true. A true sign that someone doesn't feel like they are being pressured is using terms like Mercifully.
And lets not forget. Around that time the narrative from the POTUS himself was that Social Media Companies are killing people.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
. The question is: Are we comfortable with the government pressuring companies who control platforms where people get their news to silence dissent.
You keep on saying this as if it were true.
Because it is very likely true. A true sign that someone doesn't feel like they are being pressured is using terms like Mercifully.
at best you have evidence of the WH questioning why one particular person wasn't banned.
at best.
you think this is the end of the world?
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
. The question is: Are we comfortable with the government pressuring companies who control platforms where people get their news to silence dissent.
You keep on saying this as if it were true.
Because it is very likely true. A true sign that someone doesn't feel like they are being pressured is using terms like Mercifully.
at best you have evidence of the WH questioning why one particular person wasn't banned.
at best.
you think this is the end of the world?
I never said it was the end of the world. I'm asking if people are comfortable with the government pressuring social media companies to silence dissent. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
Personally, I'm with Carl Sagan on this one.
Carl Sagan, 1996. “If we are not able to ask skeptical questions [of scientists], to interrogate those who tell us something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.” https://t.co/adi39TFk8P
— Madame Kempe (@MadameKempe) August 31, 2022
For Sale
-
Coffee mugs $1.50
More info
Garage Sales
-
Garage Sale Sale Date: Nov 23, 2024
More info
Free Items
Real Estate Listings
-
Renovated apartment in Bloomfield
3 Bd | 2Full Ba
$2,850
I'd like to revisit some of the censoring that has been going on in Social media. For a while, Conservatives and other people who question the official narrative around various topics have complained that they have been shadow banned, banned for some time, and sometimes permanently banned.
The sentiment around here IIRC, has been: Well that's because you're rude, or what have you. When it has been shown that the policies have not been applied fairly, that's been met with "Well Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want".
Does it change anyone's mind that it seems as though the current administration seemed to be, at the very least requesting that Alex Berenson be banned? We've learned this through the discovery of the Alex Berenson vs Twitter case. While the case seems to focus on the breach of contract by Twitter, this does seem like a clear violation of Berenson's first amendment rights. Especially when you consider how many times Jack Dorsey was questioned by Congress and the pressure certain Congressmen put on him to stop this behavior. This behavior they complain about used to be called journalism.