Comments by "justgivemethetruth" (@justgivemethetruth) on "Jay Bhattacharya: What I discovered at Twitter HQ" video.

I guess I don't understand why anyone's messages would go out to any but their followers - or per some algorithm - which always sucks - to some group of people who were computed to be interested in the same things. I am newer to Twitter than this guy and I already get too many messages from the people I follow to really follow them - and much of what they say is kind of useless patter. So, if I were to get a message from this guy showing up in my Twitter feed, the odds are that I would ignore it. So, what did this really mean? To me it means that there are hidden proprietary means of promoting and demoting people and their messages and points of view. In certain respects i think that is a good or necessary thing - considering the old saying that a lie can get around the world before the truth can put its shoes on. The social media stuff is dangerous, and what is more dangerous is having the workings of these algorithms be private and proprietary - and not known about or understood. So, my next question would be - what was it this guy was saying that was getting so much negative attention that he was talked about, and that action was taken against him. Then if that is true - what was the effect, and why should be get promoted any more than I should or anyone else. Why is he complaining?
1
It's funny how when we discuss Universal Health Care that Sweden is claimed by the Right-wing to be too different a population from the US to be a valid model for the US. Yet when it comes to school lockdowns a study in Sweden was being used to justify lifting lockdowns in the US. Again ... the Right-wing dementia enters social media, and the argument is free speech - or the freedom for a massive troll army to be used to manipulate public opinion. So - again it boils down to either doing moderation by imperfect but competent people, versus leaving the moderation up to the loudest most numerous troll voices.
1
The thing is that this "Great Barrington Declaration" might have been a great idea, or there might have been a lot of reasons for why it it might not work and would be a gamble with people's lives to implement. There is a whole thing about this in business Six Sigma, about process improvement and all the factors that go into that. It could have been too complex, or too much for people to actually do, or all kinds of things. Instead of having a reasoned discussion thsee things turn into food fights on Twitter - so again - yeah, I come down against this guy, because you need to prove your case, otherwise all you do is to create noise. Sounds like he created a lot of noise, amplified by the right-wing nuts who were not posting very rational fact-based science on lockdowns, but instead doing the equivalent of rioting ... like Jan 6th.
1
@coachduke9323 The problem with what you say, and the way you say it is basically you are covering for people who just wanted a plague to run through society so the oligarchs' lives and profits would not be disrupted. It was a death cult that thought of the pandemic as some kind of Darwinian test that would get rid of the weak, the sick, the older, those who had bad health and nutrition. The real problem is that there is really no way they could say what they really wanted to bring about - because no one would agree to it ,and they would see the Elitists for what they are and having proven themselves to be every time we have a social, economic or military crisis.
1
What I have heard is that the lockdown is computed to have saved the lives of about 3 million people. So, why was he criticizing it? Because when you look at what happened with various places like China lifting lockdowns how fast Covid took off. Wasn't the time frame this guy is talking about condicindent with the second massive wave of infections and deaths?
1
@coachduke9323 You just tried to make up your own numbers. It was not all just about first order death rates, it was about destroying our hospital networks to serve people. You don't know what you are talking about. I am quote experts who have studied the issue, you are just claiming they're wrong and dismissing any result of statistical modeling. You apparently do not get how ignorant that is.
1
Here is a funny story about the AI suppressing of tweets. This is from the chat forum company Disqus. I was posting a comment and was getting repeatedly censored because I was using the term Nazi - while talking about Nazis. Then another time the discuss was about guns, and I was talking about automatic guns or pistols that needed to be cocked. Those comments were refused because presumably the term cock was pornographic. If this is the AI Elon Musk says we have to fear, I'd say he doesn't know what he is talking about.
1
So he was anti-lockdown - and went against his profession and the government - and got picked up and promoted by a bunch of trolls to get more than his share of attention , and then Twitter turned that down. Without knowing that much about it - I think that is OK. though I would like to see both - 1. What it was he was saying and citing to be anti-lockdown. 2. What was the makeup of the audience who was promoting him. I'd bet it was BS. I think anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine folks should have been shut up - or rather toned down in some way. I think this guy is a whiner, and he is being used as a tool to push censorhip by troll, as opposed to what is not an imperfect moderation system.
1
If there was ever any format that is the worst for trying to publish news or tell a story - it is trying to tweet it in little chunks in a horribly confused and broken up story on Twitter. Matt Taibbi is an idiot for doing that and he's lost all credibility with me anyway.
1
23:00 - censoring a sitting governor talking to leading scientists. that is as misleading as it would be if you have those leading scientists talk to a totally ignorant and even malevolent idiot and then AI'ed the video to sychronize DeSantis into their place and replace the voice. It has negative value to society. plus, on these Twiter feeds it is not really censorship because some people still hear it, and they can broadcast it out to their networks. This is just Twitter decided not to over-amplify this or let it get out of hand until it meets certain criteria. Like - for example if De Santis actually learned something or had some un-cherry picked people weight in to show how incompetent he is - or isn't. If DeSantis, and by extention you malefactors on the extreme right actually ever had a point or engaged in a fair, honest, argument without media or rhetorical tricks it would be major news and it would have been amplfied to the world. Or could have been. In any case - to make this whole twitter files thing - a thing - there has to be something ... not just some amorphous suspicion, but a clear output or even output(s) of more questions of solutions. Or polls to people. The best thing, though kind of sad, is the best thing Elon Musk did was to end his CEO position by poll. That is an example of the kind of thing Twitter could be tuned to provide. But every organization is so courrupt and criminal that no one wants a real measurable veriable peer reviewed truth to come out - they don't want truth - they want to push the agenda of a warlike minority in the alternate universe of business, but which is still as destructive and toxic as war.
1
There is - what I could call a defect in social media - a lot of social media sites where someone - or a bunch of unspecified people acting in concert can flag someone and get them shut down or kicked off. I have posted contrarian about the Ukraine war trying to post alternative views and history that have never been reported on by the media - and I get a swarm of the same people replying, harassing me, and flagging my comments ... just one is a massive sea of trolling establishment-centric narratives that have gotten me 3 or 4 times suspended from posting for hours to days. I did not use profanity, or violate any sites terms of service. I am careful to be precise and cool about my comments - even though I might be angry at the time of posting, but it never helps anyone to read ones post if they are just name-calling or insults. I stick to the facts - always willing to hear if I am wrong or missed something. That is not what social media seems to care about. All social media sites seem to be about amplifying their own values and priorities - or in following the government's or military's releases. I am not really sure how to look at that. I can see on some things it might be valid and useful, but so far I have not seen it. Perhaps the thing i can most agree with is the establishment's take on Covid and masks and lockdowns - having seem the trolls attacking it - based on purely made up lies and false claims. I don't know if the answer to any of this is to allow anything and just leave it up to free speech, which we are already seeing on Twitter, it is hard to say if there is even such a thing as free speech.
1
13:25 - Bzzzzzzzztt - Oh, it is absolutely BS to frame what Elon Musk has done or is doing at Twitter as being "restoring free speech" that is a vicious propaganda, spinning lie - at the very least something that has not been proved or understood to be true. It is being rammed down our throats with social media - so, really, by definition, it is not free speech and what he is doing is hardly free speech. it is right-wing BS talk.
1
So, isn't the question of this guy - what it was that he was saying that Twitter was unsure of expanding out to a massive audience? is that what he is complaining about. Is there some guarantee that he should be given that right - and on what do you base that on? Reason or just votes, and if votes can be trolled, then the only thing you have to go on is how you interpret what people will get from certain tweets. Like say the Sandy Hook denier guy, Alex Jones ... is it censorship that perhaps that someone say Alex Jones' content and said this should be promoted - and yet still he is very well known for his sandy hook denial - so it does not mean a message cannot get through - it simply means it has to be consciously thought about by non bot or troll accounts. The thing is that moderation, particularly automated moderation is just a poor product, and we do not really know what we are doing with it.
1