"Twitter Removes Post by COVID Adviser Regarding Masks" Topic

Twitter removed a post from White House pandemic task force member Dr. Scott Atlas, accusing him of violating its policy about "misleading information."

A spokesperson for the company confirmed to CNN on Oct. 18 that the post was removed. According to the spokesperson, the Twitter policy that Atlas allegedly violated prohibits sharing false or misleading content related to the pandemic.

"Masks work? NO: LA, Miami, Hawaii, Alabama, France, Phlippnes, UK, Spain, Israel. WHO:'widesprd use not supported' + many harms; Heneghan/Oxf CEBM:'despite decades, considerble uncertainty re value'; CDC rvw May:'no sig red'n in inflnz transm'n'; learn why," Atlas wrote in the now-deleted post on Oct. 17. It had information about the effectiveness of masks amid the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic.

link

But a question for you. For every article you cherry-pick there are countless others stating, at the least, that masks are probably helping.

You've clearly gone way beyond the 'devil's advocate' or 'advising caution' point, so why are you constantly taking that side?
If there was any chance, 'any', that masks could save lives (and don't forget, it's not individual choice here – it's looking out for your neighbors), why are you seemingly siding against it?

I hate 'em but if there is any slight reduction of risk to this multiple pre-existing condition guy I'll do it. That said I do believe "They" are trying to condition the public to follow governmental orders.

First of all, that tweet is incomprehensible. And I've been working on javascript all week.

Second, there are oodles of tweets about masks all the time, on both sides. Twitter censors one? Definitely a conspiracy.

Third, COVID kind of is a gaming issue. It's an everything issue.

But, yeah, I'm happier to talk about something else.

I really still don't understand this idea that asking people to wear masks under certain circumstances is such an attack on personal liberty.

No different from obliging people from wearing a seat belt when driving a car, or a helmet when on a motor cycle is it? Neither guarantee you'll be unhurt if involved in an accident but it does reduce the risk.

Why is it any different from a restaurant that refuses admission to customers not wearing a shirt?

You have no ‘right' to be served in a shop that requires you to wear a mask, but you always have the choice to take your custom elsewhere.

This is not about masks. People are wearing masks. This is about politics and control and suppressing alternate viewpoints. We are slowly approaching Orwell's 1984. The fact that social media is now in the business of censoring certain viewpoints is disturbing.

If masks are not doing what they are supposed to do, something else needs to be done.

TMP link

Especially if there are negative side effects to wearing them.

TMP link

When members of the official pandemic task force are unable to express their professional knowledge, that's another issue. Just as serious of one.

For the love of all things holy masks work. They work. They have been in use since 1919. They were not invented to go along with COVID. We have now been using them for generations. They prevent the spread of all kinds of diseases, like say viruses that ride on droplets from person to person. Medical professionals wear them all day, every day. Any negative side effects are vanishingly small. They are not perfect, but all day every day all around the world caregivers of all kinds wear them while treating patients, and they help, a lot.

Bad mouthing masks is just silly. It is an absurd position that requires substantial mental gymnastics.

The question of government control is more serious, of course. Public safety requires masks, and your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. But we do need to watch overreach. It's a delicate balance.

This is not about masks. People are wearing masks. This is about politics and control and suppressing alternate viewpoints. We are slowly approaching Orwell's 1984. The fact that social media is now in the business of censoring certain viewpoints is disturbing.

I have a viewpoint too, that there has to be legal accountability for knowingly throwing people who rely on you in harms way. However, the government often has an immunity for its speech which means the playing field isnt level in a 1st Amendment way.

Private parties have always been able to censor anything they want. Always have been, always will be.

As a matter of fact, the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from censoring private speech. Further, when that legal fact is added to the suggestion that when the executive branch is censored by a private party it triggers a 1984 event (when we know that the villains in 1984 were the government/political party), one has to believe that this is actually beyond 1984…1984 Part Deux.

If you want to not wear a mask because of FREEDOM!!!!! go ahead. Be my guest.
But don't get in my face about it.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes sagely observed, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
And your freedom of speech does not compel me to listen to you.

I'll wear my mask in my job, and when I leave my house, because I'm a Real Man. I can take it and put up with smelling my rancid coffee. I can take sneezing and switching to a new mask because it's disgusting. I can take the discomfort and my glasses fogging. Because I'm not a candy-ass wimp who invents excuses.

Bad mouthing masks is just silly.

Reporting the ineffectiveness of something is not "bad-mouthing" it.

As a matter of fact, the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from censoring private speech.

And since social media and the press are not the government, they can censor whoever and whatever they want. Therefore there really is no free unbiased news; it's all just propaganda pushed by non-government special interests. You just helped me prove ‘fake news'.

That said I do believe "They" are trying to condition the public to follow governmental orders.

No one says what these Govt orders might be though, so I tend to not believe that that is the agenda behind this, if there is an agenda at all. I think if anyone had a hidden agenda it was the country where this virus first appeared. Their economy just grew by 5% and they have a $58 USD billion surplus. Now I wonder where they are going to spend all that money??

And since social media and the press are not the government, they can censor whoever and whatever they want. Therefore there really is no free unbiased news; it's all just propaganda pushed by non-government special interests. You just helped me prove ‘fake news'.

Curses, foiled again!

I am so totally exposed and Ive let down the entire global media conspiracy which has managed to keep this (Presumably Marxist?) bias all a secret for 75 years before my "weakest link" flub. You are too clever for me monsieur.

Who ever said the media doesn't or shouldn't have a bias? Where does this concept come from that bias is a fault? How do you conclude that bias necessarily leads to falsification? How could anything operate without bias?

As much as you are just trying to antagonize, the reality is the objective truth operates without bias.

To say the media is biased is putting it mildly. And when the media is not blatantly spreading falsehoods (as they've done in the last three years), they are censoring information. Yahoo news was getting so many negative comments with each fake news story they published that they just shut down the comments section entirely. And the New York Post, one of the oldest and most circulated newspapers in the US is still blocked from twitter. Thank goodness that most of the internet is still free and uncensored; the truth slowly gets out,

Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson said fact checks and information curation by big tech companies are "dangerous" as they are part of broader efforts by special interest groups to control and censor information that people see.

Attkisson argued these special interest groups traditionally employed the news as their vehicle to present their information to the public, but with the rise of social media and … in 2016, efforts have since been expanded.

"Starting in 2016, they needed to create the perception among us that we needed our information online curated, and fact-checked, and culled through by third parties. And now we're seeing the fruits of that, you know, the poisonous fruit of that whereby we've acceded our control to the special interests that control us through the big tech companies," Attkisson told The Epoch Times' "American Thought Leaders."

"And now they're telling us we can't access certain facts, certain studies, certain information, certain viewpoints in a way that is very Orwellian, and I think dangerous."

Internet companies have increasingly drawn scrutiny over the way they moderate content on their platforms. Companies such as Facebook and Twitter have been rebuked for doing too little about misinformation but have also received backlash for their alleged suppression and censorship of certain viewpoints.

…

Attkisson, the author of the upcoming book "Slanted: How the news media taught us to love censorship and hate journalism," argues that people are becoming increasingly numb to these social media fact-checks and curation of information and news, which could prove dangerous to the free-flowing of information in the future.

"Many of us are inviting and cheering on these fake fact checks and the curating of our information or news, not realizing I think, the slippery slope that we're going down, whereby, I think in 10 years if we don't change things, it'll be a distant memory that we could find most information we wanted to find on the internet. We won't be able to access it anymore. Only that which the powerful interests wish for us to see," she said.

She also argued that newsrooms have over the years have moved further away from actual journalism and allowed themselves to be used by these groups or individuals, from both sides of the political spectrum, to advance their agendas and narratives.

"We've allowed ourselves and the news to be used as a tool of the propagandist, even inviting them, to use us to put out their talking points on each side every day as if we're learning anything from it," she said.

"It's a really topsy turvy and baffling environment that we've allowed ourselves to do this and if you look up the term propaganda in a dictionary, that's the pure definition of what much of the news is doing today by inviting a political supporter on each side, even if you do it fairly, to spew forth whatever they want the public to believe about something that used to not be considered news and not what we devoted much of our news time to.

"And now it's wholly dominated the news landscape," she added.

link

Exactly what was being discussed on here.

Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, eh?

link

She is far too modest and should perhaps expand her reporting into unexplained and paranormal phenomena.

4 Fake News examples

On Sept. 25, Gateway Pundit posted an article headlined "EXCLUSIVE: California Man Finds THOUSANDS of What Appear to be Unopened Ballots in Garbage Dumpster — Workers Quickly Try to Cover Them Up — We Are Working to Verify." The envelopes turned out to be empty and discarded legally in 2018. Gateway Pundit later updated the headline, but not before its original speculation had gone viral.

The Right Scoop published an article Oct. 7 headlined "DESTROYED: Tons of Trump Mail-in Ballot Applications SHREDDED in Back of Tractor-trailer Headed for Pennsylvania." The material was actually printing waste from a direct-mail company. The publication later changed the headline to reflect that the claim had been debunked.

Another site, Daily Wire, posted a Sept. 24 article about ballots in Pennsylvania under the headline "FEDS: Military Ballots Discarded in ‘Troubling' Discovery. All Opened Ballots Were Cast for Trump." Headlines on the same issue in The Washington Times were similar: "Feds Investigating Discarded Mail-in Ballots Cast for Trump in Pennsylvania" and "FBI Downplays Election Fraud as Suspected Ballot Issues Found in Pennsylvania, Texas." A Washington Times opinion piece on the matter had the headline "Trump Ballots in Trash, Oh My."

Several days after the reports, neither Daily Wire nor The Washington Times appeared to follow up with articles on the announcement from Pennsylvania's elections chief that the discarded ballots were a "bad error" by a seasonal contractor, not "intentional fraud."

I'll stick with the Wall Street Journal.

Well said except that the Wall Street Journal is a completely compromised rag fit only for eating ones breakfast on at one's desk. Recently they just had to eat crow, along with the NY Post and Fox News, around that falsified Hunter Biden story.

All three of those media are owned by Rupert Murdoch who repays citizenship in any country he slimes his way into with controversies, divisiveness and panic creating fake stories.

It is hilarious that that crafted conspiracy was an attempt to bait the rest of the media into blowing it up but even all of his staged efforts to will it into being flopped.

I'm not convinced that masks are terribly effective. The experts sure were slow to recommend them, before they decided everyone should wear them, and now some experts are looking at the data and raising questions.

But I'm still wearing my mask when in public. Why not? It might help.

And it really bugs me when I see people in public not wearing their masks, or wearing them improperly. Some guy in the grocery section was wandering around with his mask pulled all the way down, that's just disrespectful of others.

But nonsense about putting plexiglass between every table in a restaurant? Impractical, expensive, too hard to maintain, overkill.

Let's hope this vaccine works.

Recently they just had to eat crow, along with the NY Post and Fox News, around that falsified Hunter Biden story.

What story is that?

Thank goodness that most of the internet is still free and uncensored;

Looks like I spoke too soon. Funny how someone can get away with bashing the prestigious Wall Street Journal and the highest rated news channel in the USA and yet when I criticize two other news channels for not covering an important news story it is my post which gets censored. You see, this is how America's enemies attack us, not with blatant military force, but by an insidious erosion of our democratic institutions. The 1st amendment is much more than its strict legal definition of protection from government, but founded on the principles of free people being able to express themselves in a free society. It's a slippery slope into Orwell's 1984; oppression just doesn't come from the government but from ‘we the people' if we allow it to happen. Pretty soon there will be no dissenting voices in the echo chamber you help create. What's that famous quote by Voltaire?

Funny how someone can get away with bashing the prestigious Wall Street Journal and the highest rated news channel in the USA

Listen, the WSJ was just caught with its paw in the cookie jar in a 3-way with FOX News and the NY Post (All 3 media owned by Dick Dastardly from Down Under)to try and hype a story about a laptop that wouldn't stand muster with Alex Jones' audience. The WSJ bashed themselves and gave themselves a permanent black eye.

Highest rated news channel eh? Just goes to show that lies travel faster than truth which is exactly why a lot of conspiracy performance artists want access to Twits-ter and Farcebook. Frankly, they get away with it far too much.

You see, this is how America's enemies attack us, not with blatant military force, but by an insidious erosion of our democratic institutions.

You mean like interference with our elections? I thought FOX says that that is fake news?

The 1st amendment is much more than its strict legal definition of protection from government, but founded on the principles of free people being able to express themselves in a free society. It's a slippery slope into Orwell's 1984; oppression just doesn't come from the government but from ‘we the people' if we allow it to happen. Pretty soon there will be no dissenting voices in the echo chamber you help create.

OK, you ignored the part above about the government doing the lying and getting upset about being censored by private institutions which is A-OK under the 1st Amendment.

No one is stopping people from expressing themselves. They are still free to lie and invent stories but they shouldn't have access to legitimizing platforms to spread misinformation. Like wmyers says, the truth will out, thus let them stick to their out-of-the-basment-blogging.

What's that famous quote by Voltaire?

You mean the cartoon robot?

The Wall Street Journal and Fox turned down the story you are referencing. The Post was given it only after the promise not to verify. Ownership may drive a slant to left or right but most newsrooms (as opposed to opinion) try pretty hard to be right. The feature writer on that Post story refused to have his byline on it because it was so sketchy.

I actually believe most of the mainstream (they are mainstream for a reason and mainstream includes everything from Fox through MSNBC) generally does a good job in very difficult circumstances as given the truly unfortunate tendency of folks in the internet age to select information outlets only at places that reinforce existing prejudices including wildly unqualified social media. If Facebook, Twitter or Instagram is your primary information source, you are part of the problem.

two other news channels for not covering an important news story

That story has been covered by each and every news outlet, just not live. As a live television event, swearing in activities are about as vitally important as beer commercials.

Highest rated news channel eh? Just goes to show that lies travel faster than truth

LOL, pot meet kettle.

link

link

link

link

Ratings are not a terribly informative way of evaluating news. The amount or ratings of 'opinion' such as a Hannity or Maddow should not factor into evaluating news. Fox has the most viewership for any single channel but as the single dominate player on their side of the spectrum, do not have the same splitting of audience as those on the center and left.

I genuinely believe the newsroom portions of the mainstream, while certainly oriented towards their own outlook be it right, left or center, generally try to be accurate in factual material. Inherent bias tends to show more in what is covered and how that coverage is phrased than in actual factual material. The fringe entities tend to be self-limiting as sooner or later that lack of fact checking and the need to appeal to the extremes gets them into trouble, for example with Infowars getting sued into receivership thanks to the Sandy Hook idiocy. No mainstream entity be it Fox or MSNBC could ever be that stupid and unprofessional.

McKinstry, what you just wrote is rational. I think most of us want objective news. After three years listening to some in the msm claim that our President is a Russian agent then after millions of tax payer money spent on investigations to come up with nothing in the end; well what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

investigations to come up with nothing in the end

The Senate Intelligence Committee report lead by Johnson(R-WI) did affirm Russian interference and contact with some parties such as Manafort. They committee did warn that Russia, Iran and to a much lesser extent China, were attempting the same in 2020. The Intelligence community has concurred.

Neither the majority nor the minority in the report claimed any knowledge or agency by the Chief Executive.

Yep, all you have to do is follow the money. Who paid for the Steele Dossier? There is the source of the real Russian interference. Of course no one does foreign interference like the good ol' USA. We certainly have a history of interfering in the elections of leaders like Saddam, Ghadafi, Noriega, etc. We don't just spend a few thousand on fake Facebook ads, but launch million dollar TLAM's. No better way to fix an election than to just kill or prison foreign leaders.

Who paid for the Steele Dossier?

Initially paid for by the conservative Washington Free Beacon as opposition research and only later by HRC's campaign. The Senate Committee was not complimentary of Manafort and Gates citing deliberate desire at collusion only thwarted by incompetence.

launch million dollar TLAM's.

Strangely enough in a very divided time, there is a substantial consensus among Americans of all parties that democracy is not a magic fairy dust that can ignore all history, culture and circumstance anywhere in the world. Regime change is generally a discredited term across the political spectrum.

True

On the thread topic I could fill this thread with many times the 1st Amendment has been shreaded by many social media companies.

On the thread topic I could fill this thread with many times the 1st Amendment has been shreaded by many social media companies.

I'm not American, but I do know that the first amendment does not apply to private individuals or companies. For example, if Bill were to say that topic X is off the menu on his website, he's well within in rights to do so.

The actual 1st Amendment, in total.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I believe it would refer to:

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

and

the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That would just be in regard to covid.

More examples of mask law adherence by those who made the rules:

link

Opinion piece in Chemistry World about the risk of pseudoscience moving mainstream:

link

Considering the zombie arguments (they won't die despite repeated refutation) regards to global warming, coivd, vaccines ect… my reaction "Moving to the Mainstream"?

Science shouldn't be about conformity.

He theory is social media companies are only publishers of information, but now if they are also censoring information they are helping create that information.

Science shouldn't be about conformity.

True, and getting scientists to agree on something is akin to herding cats. The evidence is usually very compelling when a consensus emerges.

when a consensus emerges.

It has to be a free, open and unbiased consensus to be valid.

Yet, when you insert the politics all those go right into the trash.